"Ethical considerations of genome editing inform a reflection on the implications of introducing heritable changes in the genome of individuals. It is concluded that the transhumanist program is underpinned by a large number of hypotheses rather than by sufficient evidence." (abstract)

This review provides comprehensive information on novel stem cell therapy research that has been channeled out for the treatment of this genetic neurodegenerative disorder.

"It becomes clear that these novel procedures are incompatible with the concept of equality in value and in worth of all human beings in a genuinely inclusive society. Such equality is expressed in Article 1 of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that: 'All human beings are born ... equal in dignity and rights.'"

The sequencing of the human genome and advances in gene therapy and genomic editing, coupled with embryo selection techniques and a potential gerontological intervention, are some examples of the rapid technological advances of the "genetic revolution." This article addresses the methodological issue of how we should theorize about justice in the genomic era. Invoking the methodology of non-ideal theory, I argue that theorizing about justice in the genomic era entails theorizing about (1) the new inequalities that the genetic revolution could exacerbate (e.g., genetic discrimination, disability-related injustices, and gender inequality), and (2) those inequalities that the genetic revolution could help us mitigate (e.g., the risks of disease in early and late life). By doing so, normative theorists can ensure that we develop an account of justice that takes seriously not only individual rights, equality of opportunity, the cultural and sociopolitical aspects of disability, and equality between the sexes, but also the potential health benefits (to both individuals and populations) of attending to the evolutionary causes of morbidity and disability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

"Technologies for human germ‐line modification may soon enable humanity to create new types of human beings. Decisions about use of this power entail an unprecedented combination of difficulties: the stakes are immense, the unknowns are daunting, and moral principles are called into question. Evolved morality is not a sure basis for these decisions, both because of its inherent imperfections and because genetic engineering could eventually change humans' innate cognitive mechanisms. Nevertheless, consensus is needed on moral values relevant to germ‐line modification. These values could be based on characteristics of human beings that would remain constant regardless of revised genomes." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

"EU legislation prohibits clinical trials that modify germ line 'genetic identity'. 'Genetic identity' however, is left undefined. This study aims to identify the use of the term 'genetic identity' in academic literature, and investigate its relevance for debates on genetic modification. A total of 616 articles that contained the term were identified. Content analysis revealed that the term was used in various and contradicting ways and a clear understanding of the term is lacking. This review demonstrates that the EU legislation is open to interpretation, because of the diversity of meaning with which 'genetic identity' is currently used. Because of the diversity of meaning with which 'genetic identity' is used and understood, further reflection is needed. This requires further medical, legal, ethical and social debate and a coordinated response at both a European and a global level." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

"This Note recommends the creation of the International Gene-Editing Ethics Commission, which would promulgate publicly approved ethical standards for gene editing while also providing member countries with access to publication in scientific journals, funding, and an international database."

From conclusion: "A proposed resolution must take a forward-thinking approach, considering both the research itself and the potential use and commercialization of edited sperm. Similar to the United Kingdom, the United States should establish a federal licensing system that requires all researchers to obtain a license prior to conducting their research."

"Considering residual safety concerns and the negative publicity engendered by an ethically problematic recent (2018) first attempt at HGGM, it seems prudent—and ultimately generative of the greatest amount of utility—to delay implementing HGGM for a modest period of time, in the order of 1–2 years." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The CQ timeline is useful for student researchers.

Columbia Law School, 2017. "The Constitution has long protected the rights of individuals to procreate and parent, free from government intrusion. But as new technologies stretch the boundaries of what it means to create a family, the scope of these rights have come into question. Specifically, modern advances in genetic modification will soon allow parents to make direct modifications to particular embryos. The possibility of such advances gives rise to questions about how to regulate the making of "designer babies." (abstract)