Bioethics from a Christian perspective?

[HRankin (Hillary Rankin)]

You might be able to use some of this!

If you email integrate@ I’m sure we can hook you up.

DNA Technologies and Ethics | Integrate - Faith & Science Curriculum -...

[T_aquaticus]

@pevaquark

Anyone know of some standard secular texts.

The Belmont Report is one of the foundational texts that helped define bioethics as it relates to human subjects.

The Belmont Report

That report is part of my annual bioethics training, along with other institutional guidelines.

In an attempt to strengthen human research protections, the National Research Act was passed in 1974. As part of this Act, the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research was created and tasked with developing a code of human subjects research ethics. The Commission published the Belmont Report in 1976 which identified the following basic ethical principles:

1. Respect for Persons expresses the ethical convictions that the autonomy of individuals should be respected and that persons with diminished autonomy are entitled to equal protection.
2. Beneficence describes an obligation to protect subjects from harm by maximizing possible benefits and minimizing possible harms.
3. Justice promotes equitable representation in research in terms of fairly distributing the risks and benefits of research.

The Belmont Ethical Principles provided the foundation for the Common Rule (45 CFR 46) human subjects research regulations. This guidance page describes regulatory concepts, such as consent, within the context of these ethical principles. Additional content will be added over time.
The Belmont Report - UW Research

[T_aquaticus]

@jpm

Ethics of genetic engineering etc. especially with IVF issues. I asked around a little in a physician group, will add any suggestions they may have for texts, though am sure you have googled those as well.

Relating back the Belmont Report in my post above, one of the major problems with genetic engineering in humans is consent. You not only lack the consent of the person whose genome you are going to be altering, but also all of their offspring. We can also consider the other two prongs of the Belmont report: Beneficence and justice. Do the harms outweigh the benefits?

If we are talking about mutations related to severe disease, then I think there can be a good argument supporting genetic engineering in humans. If the genetic change results in a known naturally occurring sequence then harm is limited while benefits are high. The other issue at the moment is the technology itself which can’t guarantee that only specific changes will occur. Off-target changes are still a real potential problem with CRISPR/Cas9 modifications, and was a serious problem with earlier viral based vectors.

Ultimately, this is an issue that needs broad support across society and cultures. Science can only tell us what we can do, not what we should do.