Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
J Med Ethics. 2020 Feb;46(2):153-155. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2019-105832. Epub 2019 Nov 6.
In this reply, we wish to defend our original position and address several of the points raised by two excellent responses. The first response (De Miguel Beriain) questions the relevance of the notion of 'serious' within the context of human germline genome modification (HGGM). We argue that the 'serious' factor is relevant and that there is a need for medical and social lenses to delineate the limits of acceptability and initial permissible applications of HGGM. In this way, 'serious' acts as a starting point for further discussions and debates on the acceptability of the potential clinical translation of HGGM. Therefore, there is a pressing need to clarify its scope, from a regulatory perspective, so as to prevent individuals from using HGGM for non-therapeutic or enhancement purposes. The second response (Kalsi) criticizes the narrow interpretation of the objectivist approach and the apparent bias towards material innovations when discussing the right to benefit from scientific advancements. As an in-depth discussion of the objectivist and constructivist approaches was beyond the scope of our original paper, we chose to focus on one specific objectivist account, one which focuses on biological and scientific facts. We agree, however, with the critique that material innovations should not be the sole focus of the right to benefit from scientific advancements, which also incorporates freedom of scientific research and access to scientific knowledge scientific freedom and knowledge, including the influence of these on ethical thinking and cultures.
在这封回复中，我们希望捍卫自己的立场，并回应两位优秀回复者提出的几点意见。首先，德·米格尔-贝里亚因（De Miguel Beriain）质疑“严重”这一概念在人类生殖系基因组编辑（HGGM）背景下的相关性。我们认为，“严重”因素是相关的，需要从医学和社会角度来划定可接受性的界限以及 HGGM 的初始可允许应用。这样，“严重”就成为进一步讨论和辩论 HGGM 的潜在临床转化可接受性的起点。因此，迫切需要从监管角度澄清其范围，以防止个人出于非治疗或增强目的而使用 HGGM。其次，卡尔斯（Kalsi）批评了客观主义方法的狭隘解释以及在讨论受益于科学进步的权利时对物质创新的明显偏见。由于深入讨论客观主义和建构主义方法超出了我们原始论文的范围，我们选择专注于一种特定的客观主义解释，即关注生物和科学事实的解释。然而，我们同意这样的批评，即物质创新不应成为受益于科学进步的权利的唯一关注点，该权利还包括科学研究自由和获取科学知识的自由——包括这些因素对伦理思维和文化的影响。
