Easy technique, unconsenting subject, speculative benefit: the 2018 edited babies drew one condemnation in many vocabularies, and the line between somatic therapy and germline design is now the field’s governing border.
Tagged: Buddhist Catholic Hindu Jewish
He Jiankui’s 2018 announcement — twin girls born with edited CCR5 genes — produced the modern era’s broadest joint condemnation: scientific academies, journal editors, legislatures, and religious bodies condemned the act in the same week, for reasons that differed and did not need to agree. The germline case concentrates the era’s structure: a technique that is easy, a subject who cannot consent (the future person), a benefit that is speculative (the edited trait was not a disease the children faced), and a governance gap between national systems.
The register’s technology page keeps the positions separate: Rome’s refusal of germline disposition, the responsa’s conditional therapy, the fiqh academies’ protection-of-progeny reasoning, Hindu and Buddhist intention-based evaluations, and the academies’ own governance framework. The flashpoint stays open because somatic editing’s successes (sickle-cell therapies approved from 2023) keep proving the platform while the germline prohibition holds by consensus that no body has yet had to enforce twice.
References
- National Academies, Human Genome Editing (2017)
- WHO Expert Advisory Committee, Human Genome Editing: A Framework for Governance (2021)
Related Across the Site
- Artificial intelligence and human dignity Flashpoint — Learning systems that counsel, accompany, and target: the live question is not machine consciousness but what may never be delegated — and every tradition on this site answers that accountability stays with persons.
- The limits of medicine Flashpoint — The ventilator meets the ars moriendi: a working consensus against vitalism, hospice as a shared institution with Christian roots, and the assisted-dying argument proceeding jurisdiction by jurisdiction through every tradition’s courts of conscience.
- Transhumanism and the body Flashpoint — Mortality as an engineering backlog: lifespan, cognition, and the body as a draft to be revised — and the counter-question, asked in every dialect on this site, whether a self indefinitely revisable remains a self.
- St Andrews Encyclopaedia of Theology Library — An open-access, multi-author theological reference with advanced articles on Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism.
- Contemporary Science Era — CRISPR, consumer genomics, machine intelligence, and a warming climate: the live questions now arrive as engineering deadlines, and the traditions answer them divided within themselves as much as between one another.
- Evolution by natural selection Technology — The mechanism that reorganized biology: embraced, adapted, and fought over — usually inside traditions rather than between them, from Asa Gray’s theistic evolution to today’s divided evangelical house.
- Germline gene editing Technology — 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.
- Surgical and medical abortion Technology — The register’s most documented case: refused absolutely by Rome and by the evangelical mainstream, governed by ensoulment in the classical fiqh, divided in the responsa by stage and by the mother’s priority, grave in Buddhist and Hindu ethics — each in its own premises, left standing.