Setting ethical limits on human gene editing after the fall of the somatic/germline barrier

Since the 1950s, there has been an ethical debate about what we would now call human gene editing (HGE) (1). In the 1950s, after realization of the connection of mainstream eugenics to the Holocaust, the reform eugenics movement concluded that desirable genetic capacities were not clustered in races, ethnicities, or social classes but could be found in all groups. To improve the species, the persons with better qualities should have more children and those with lesser qualities should have fewer (2). The developing understanding of genes as chemicals made The ethical debate about what is now called human gene editing (HGE) has gone on for more than 50 y. For nearly that entire time, there has been consensus that a moral divide exists between somatic and germline HGE. Conceptualizing this divide as a barrier on a slippery slope, in this paper, I first describe the slope, what makes it slippery, and describe strong barriers that arrest the slippage down to the dystopian bottom of pervasive eugenic enhancement. I then show how the somatic/germline barrier in the debate has been weakened to the level of ineffectiveness, with no replacement below. I examine a number of possible barriers on the slope below the somatic/germline barrier, most of which lack sufficient strength. With the exception of the minority of people in the HGE debate who see the eugenic society as utopia, the majority will need a barrier on the slope to stop the slide to dystopia.

Automated summary

The ethical debate over human gene editing (HGE) has been ongoing since the 1950s, with differing opinions on whether it can enhance the quality of the human population or if it poses risks of sliding into a dystopian future. While some see eugenics as a utopian society, the majority believe that ethical barriers are necessary to prevent the negative consequences of genetic manipulation.