Compare Traditions on One Technology
Choose a technology and read the traditions' recorded stances side by side — each with its rationale in its own terms. The comparison is the section's method in one view: the differences are in the reasons.
Germline gene editing
The technology every framework was waiting for: Rome refuses it, the responsa and the fiqh academies condition it, Hindu and Buddhist evaluations run on intention — and the academies of science govern it while disagreeing about whether it should ever be used. The full register entry
Buddhist
Selectively adopted
Buddhist evaluation runs on intention (cetanā) and the reduction of suffering (dukkha): therapeutic intent commends editing in principle, while the no-self doctrine complicates ownership arguments — there is no soul-stuff for the genome to violate. Monastic authorities have issued no binding rulings; Buddhist bioethicists are mostly permissive on therapy and skeptical of enhancement markets.
- Damien Keown, Buddhism and Bioethics (1995)
Catholic
Regulated
Dignitas personae (2008) distinguishes somatic therapy — in principle licit — from germline intervention, which it refuses: the genetic patrimony of a person not yet existing may not be disposed of by others, and editing that risks the embryo’s life or identity treats a person as a product. Enhancement editing is refused on the same ground plus the justice of access.
- Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dignitas personae (2008), §§25–27
Hindu
Selectively adopted
Hindu bioethics evaluates the act by karma, intention, and dharma: curing heritable disease is intelligible as compassionate action, while the karma doctrine cuts against genetic determinism itself — a soul’s condition is not exhausted by its genome — so enhancement promises more than the tradition believes genes can deliver. No binding authority exists; the scholarly literature is cautiously permissive for therapy.
- S. Cromwell Crawford, Hindu Bioethics for the Twenty-first Century (2003)
Islamic
Regulated
Fiqh academies approach germline editing through necessity and the protection of progeny (ḥifẓ al-nasl, one of the law’s objectives): somatic therapy is widely permitted in principle; germline changes attract caution and frequent refusal because they alter what God has entrusted to descent, and because error propagates to generations who cannot consent.
- Islamic Organization for Medical Sciences, seminar conclusions on genetics (1998–2013)
Jewish
Selectively adopted
Responsa reason from the duty to heal and to prevent suffering: therapeutic germline repair of lethal disease attracts significant support in principle (with safety unresolved), while enhancement draws the objection that it confuses healing with design. No Orthodox body has issued a binding line; Conservative and Reform authorities lean permissive for therapy.
- Elliot N. Dorff, Matters of Life and Death (1998)
Secular and naturalist
Regulated
The secular consensus as far as it goes is governance, not metaphysics: the National Academies’ framework permits clinical germline editing only under stringent conditions (serious disease, no alternatives, oversight), most jurisdictions prohibit it outright, and the field’s internal quarrel — after He Jiankui’s imprisonment — is over whether the conditions can ever be met or the permission withdrawn permanently.
- National Academies, Human Genome Editing (2017); International Summit statements (2015, 2018)