Genetic Selection for Human Enhancement

Abstract This paper examines the UK regulatory framework and the ethical arguments surrounding the use of genetic tests, specifically considering how they would apply to selecting for enhanced health characteristics. 

It discusses the Human Genetic Commission reports on the use of genetic information more broadly, identifying the implied values and concerns arising from their conclusions. It argues that the HGC conflates the concepts of ‘best’ and ‘enhancement’ and that this limits the persuasiveness of their moral stance against preimplantation genetic selection for nondisease characteristics. Subsequently, the paper develops a conceptual framework of ethical objections related to genetic tests and selection. In response, it is argued that there are good reasons to permit access to genetic tests (preimplantation and postnatal) on the basis that a) it will promote the accumulation of biocultural capital and b) the burden of proof deems prohibition to be unacceptable. In conclusion, a number of issues are described as unresolved, such as the lack of clarity over whether postnatal genetic tests should be considered medical interventions and the capacity of a national health care system to provide for enhancement choices. However, it is argued that neither of these factors creates insurmountable problems for the regulation of genetic tests for enhanced health characteristics.

Download preprint PDF.

---

Andy Miah is an IEET Fellow, a Reader in New Media & Bioethics at the University of the West of Scotland, UK. He is author of Genetically Modified Athletes (2004) and is currently working on The Medicalisation of Cyberspace and CyberSport: Digital Games, Ethics & Cultures' (The MIT Press, 2007).