Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Bioethics. 2021 Sep;35(7):615-622. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12910. Epub 2021 Jun 28.
Few discussions of the ethics of mitochondrial 'replacement' techniques have drawn significant ethical distinctions between the two approaches now legal in the U.K. However, Anthony Wrigley, Stephen Wilkinson and John Appleby have together argued that under some circumstances pronuclear transfer (PNT) may be in better ethical standing than maternal spindle transfer (MST). They base their conclusion on what they allege to be different implications of the techniques with respect to non-identity considerations, which they ground on a version of origin essentialism. I raise a series of problems for their argument, which have cautionary implications for invocations of origin essentialism that go beyond specialized debates regarding MST and PNT. I argue that (i) origin essentialism is a fragile foundation for non-identity considerations; (ii) gametic essentialism, which Wrigley et al. believe licenses their claims, is more questionable than origin essentialism; (iii) gametic essentialism does not straightforwardly justify their conclusion; and (iv) their conclusion in fact relies on an especially dubious position that we can call chromosomal origin essentialism. No good reasons have yet been supplied to distinguish PNT from MST on ethical grounds, and one should be wary of basing claims with practical impact on fragile foundations relating to origin essentialism.
关于线粒体“替换”技术的伦理问题的讨论很少对英国目前合法的两种方法做出重大的伦理区分。然而，安东尼·赖格利、斯蒂芬·威尔金森和约翰·阿普尔比一起认为，在某些情况下，原核转移（PNT）在伦理上可能比母核纺锤体转移（MST）更有优势。他们的结论基于他们声称的技术在非同一性考虑方面的不同含义，他们将这些含义建立在起源本质主义的一个版本之上。我对他们的论点提出了一系列问题，这些问题对超越了关于 MST 和 PNT 的专门辩论的起源本质主义的援引具有警示意义。我认为：（i）起源本质主义是对非同一性考虑的脆弱基础；（ii）配子本质主义，赖格利等人认为它为他们的主张提供了许可，比起源本质主义更值得怀疑；（iii）配子本质主义并不能直接证明他们的结论；（iv）他们的结论实际上依赖于一种特别可疑的立场，可以称之为染色体起源本质主义。迄今为止，还没有充分的理由从伦理角度将 PNT 与 MST 区分开来，人们应该谨慎地避免将具有实际影响的主张建立在与起源本质主义相关的脆弱基础上。
