Abstract
Molecular genetic engineering technologies such as CRISPR/Cas9 have made the accurate and safe genetic engineering of human embryos possible. Further advances in genomics have isolated genes that predict qualities and traits associated with intelligence. Given these advances, prospective parents could use these biotechnologies to genetically engineer future children for genes that enhance their intelligence. While Julian Savulescu’s Principle of Procreative Beneficence (PPB) argues for the moral obligation of prospective parents to use in-vitro fertilization and preimplantation genetic diagnosis to make eugenic selections of embryos for intelligence, the PPB could imply obligations to genetically engineer selected embryos for intelligence as well. I argue that the PPB implies an additional moral obligation for prospective parents to genetically engineer the embryonic germline identity of selected embryos for genes that predict intelligence. Objections to my argument for the PPB’s extension are also discussed.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
One might add that suicide reduces pleasure because the process of committing suicide can be painful. However, this is not necessarily the case and especially in cases of intelligent people committing suicide, there is reason to doubt that the process of suicide would be painful for them. This is because an intelligent person would more effectively select, plan and execute their preferred method of suicide to minimize the pain of the procedure.
I take the attainment of ‘peace (broadly defined)’ as an objective that people would generally want to pursue.
To clarify, peace (broadly defined) could mean the absence of war. As in, the belligerents sued for peace to end the war that they were fighting. The absence of peace in this context would then mean the continuation or initiation of war.
Which in this context can be understood as world peace.
Assuming world peace is a desire that the intelligent person is committed to fulfilling.
If one counts a relationship as a friendship.
I make no claim that I have provided an exhaustive definition of beauty, I have only defined one aspect of beauty, that of elegance. Any reference I make to beauty is with respect to elegance unless otherwise stated.
Specifically, the objective list of medical principalism.
A view that the authors do not challenge in any event. However, it is worth confirming that intelligence would enhance one’s ability to effectively single out opportunities to form social relations and would promote the perpetuation of those relationships by enhancing one’s perceptiveness in ensuring that those that they are social engaged with feel maximally fulfilled in said relationships.
References
Docherty, S.J., O.S.P. Davis, Y. Kovas, E.L. Meaburn, P.S. Dale, S.A. Petrill, L.C. Schalkwyk, and R. Plomin. 2010. A genome-wide association study identifies multiple loci associated with mathematics ability and disability. Genes, Brain and Behavior 9: 234. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-183X.2009.00553.x.
Egan, Michael F., Terry E. Goldberg, Bhaskar S. Kolachana, Joseph H. Callicott, Chiara M. Mazzanti, Richard E. Straub, David Goldman, and Daniel R. Weinberger. 2001. Effect of COMT Val108/158 Met genotype on frontal lobe function and risk for schizophrenia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98: 6917. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.111134598.
Savulescu, Julian. 2001. Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best Children. Bioethics 15: 413–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8519.00251.
Yueng, Karen, Richard Ashcroft, Neva Haites, Joyce Harper, Julian Hitchcock, Jackie Leach Scully, Tony Perry, and Christine Watson. 2018. Genome editing and human reproduction. London: Nuufield Council on Bioethics.
Gyngell, Christopher, Hilary Bowman-Smart, and Julian Savulescu. 2019. Moral reasons to edit the human genome: Picking up from the Nuffield report. Journal of Medical Ethics 45: 522. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2018-105084.
Veit, Walter. 2018. Procreative Beneficence and Genetic Enhancement. KRITERION-Journal of Philosophy 32(1): 75–92.
Parfit, Derek. 1984. Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Claredon Press.
Roger, Crisp. 2017. Well-Being. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. March 2021
Newson, Ainsley, and Robert Williamson. 1999. Should We Undertake Genetic Research on Intelligence? Bioethics 13: 327–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8519.00161.
Sternberg, Robert J., Elena Grigorenko, and Donald A. Bundy. 2001. The Predictive Value of IQ. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 47: 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2001.0005.
Carter, J. Adam., and Emma C. Gordon. 2013. Intelligence, Wellbeing and Procreative Beneficence. Journal of Applied Philosophy 30: 122–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12011.
Evans, Christina J., John R. Kirby, and Leandre R. Fabrigar. 2003. Approaches to learning, need for cognition, and strategic flexibility among university students. British Journal of Educational Psychology 73: 512. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709903322591217.
Cacioppo, John T., Richard E. Petty, Chuan Feng Kao, and Regina Rodriguez. 1986. Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: An individual difference perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51: 1032–1043. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.5.1032.
Cacioppo, John T., and Richard E. Petty. 1982. The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42: 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116.
Whalley, L.J. 2001. Longitudinal cohort study of childhood IQ and survival up to age 76. BMJ 322: 819. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7290.819.
Rajput, S., M. Angela Hassiotis, S.L. Hatch. Richards, and Robert Stewart. 2011. Associations between IQ and common mental disorders: The 2000 British National Survey of Psychiatric Morbidity. European Psychiatry 26: 390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2010.07.002.
Li, Norman P., and Satoshi Kanazawa. 2016. Country roads, take me home… to my friends: How intelligence, population density, and friendship affect modern happiness. British Journal of Psychology 107: 675–697. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12181.
Koplin, Julian J., Christopher Gyngell, and Julian Savulescu. 2020. Germline gene editing and the precautionary principle. Bioethics 34: 54. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12609.
Elegance. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary.
Elegance. 2021. Cambridge Dictionary. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/elegance. Accessed December 15.
Elegance. 2021. Yourdictionary. https://www.yourdictionary.com/elegance. Accessed December 15.
Jacquette, Dale. 2006. A Companion to Philosophical Logic, ed. Dale Jacquette. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996751.
Baker, Alan. 2016. Simplicity. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Jones, Christopher V. 1997. Visualization and Optimization. Journal of the Operational Research Society 48: 961. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2600937.
Fuller, Matthew. 2008. software studies/a lexicon. Edited by Matthew Fuller. 1st ed. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. 87–91.
Efatmaneshnik, Mahmoud, and Michael J. Ryan. 2019. On the Definitions of Sufficiency and Elegance in Systems Design. IEEE Systems Journal 13: 2077–2088. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2018.2875152.
Hourani, Rami, and Ashok Kakkar. 2010. Advances in the Elegance of Chemistry in Designing Dendrimers. Macromolecular Rapid Communications 31: 947–974. https://doi.org/10.1002/marc.200900712.
Tsilikis, John D. 1959. Simplicity And Elegance in Theoretical Physics. American Scientist 47: 87–96. North Carolina: Sigma **, The Scientific Research Honor Society.
Hancock, John F. 1876. Modern methods in pharmacy. American Journal of Pharmacy 1835–1907: 199.
Beauchamp, Tom L. and James F. Childress. 2009. Principles of Medical Ethics. 7th edition. Oxford University Press.
Acknowledgements
Thank you to Prof. Christopher Simon Wareham for his patient and diligent supervision of my MSc dissertation, a dissertation which I proudly passed cum laude, upon which this publication is based.
Funding
No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
I have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gantsho, L. The principle of procreative beneficence and its implications for genetic engineering. Theor Med Bioeth 43, 307–328 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-022-09585-0
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-022-09585-0