Bioethics in Faith and Practice, Volume 4, Number 1

Bioethics in Faith and Practice ⦁ 2019 ⦁ Volume 4 ⦁ Number 1 1 Bioethics in Faith and Practice vol. 4 no. 1, pp. 1-3. ISSN 2374-1597 © 2019, Heather Kuruvilla, licensed under CC BY-NC-ND ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ) From the Managing Editor Is Bioethics Relevant? Heather G. Kuruvilla, Ph.D. Cedarville University We live in a broken, unjust, and often dangerous world. Technology promises hope; hope for new cures, broader access to information, and a better quality of life for humankind. Technologies such as gene editing and artificial intelligence continue to progress at a pace we have never seen before, running far ahead of the ethical discussions surrounding their stewardship. In a technology-driven culture like ours, one might be tempted to ask whether the ethical discussion is still relevant. Take the example of the young girls who were genetically modified as embryos, using CRISPR, in China last year. The embryos were edited to modify a specific protein, CCR5, in order to make the girls HIV-resistant. New data are emerging that indicate not all of the cells in the embryo were edited, and that the change in the CCR5 protein may not have given the girls any HIV resistance. 1 The risk of off-target mutations remains, and because these mutations may exist in the girls’ germlines, they can now be passed to future generations. Dimitri Perrin and Gaetan Burgio, when discussing this case, note that “embryo editing is only ethically justifiable in cases where the benefits clearly outweigh the risks.” 2 However, “we are just not ready for human embryo editing. Our techniques are not mature enough, and no case has been made for a widespread need…” 3 The authors stress the need for governance and a possible moratorium on embryo editing until techniques mature, noting the lack of scientific and ethical consensus at present. Bioethics must inform this discussion. Meanwhile, in the political arena, the debate over when human personhood begins continues to take center stage as an increasing number of states allow abortions all the way up until the time of birth. Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg, defending abortion rights, noted, “… there’s a lot of parts of the Bible that talk about how life begins with breath, and so even that is something that we can interpret differently…” 4 , implying that personhood begins with birth. As author Ross Douthat has noted, this position is not scientifically defensible, since the primary biological difference between a nearly-born fetus and a newborn is their position (inside vs. outside the uterus) and the fact that the newborn is using 1 Perrin, Dmitri, and Burgio, Gaetan. New details about the infamous “CRISPR babies” have just been revealed. Science Alert : 9 December 2019. 2 Ibid 3 Ibid 4 Douthat, Ross. The abortion mysticism of Pete Buttigieg. The New York Times: 17 September 2019