The second generation of IVF has moral disputes
The second generation of IVF, also known as gene editing baby, refers to the genetic transformation of embryos in the IVF stage through gene editing technology, so as to achieve the expected genetic characteristics. The emergence of this technology has caused extensive discussion and controversy. The main moral disputes focus on four aspects: interference in the natural genome, the reduction of genetic diversity, the consequences of uncertainty and social inequality.
1. Interference with natural genome
The basic principle of the second generation of IVF is to obtain the desired genetic characteristics by modifying the genome of the embryo and removing or adding specific genes. However, whether such interference is in line with the moral norms has been widely debated. On the one hand, genome interference is considered to interfere with nature, which violates the laws of nature and may lead to unknown consequences. On the other hand, the interference of genome is also considered as an attempt of human evolution, and a reflection of technological progress and human free will.
However, the core of the moral controversy lies in the cognition of whether humans should interfere with the natural genome. Some people believe that human beings should respect the natural genome, follow the laws of nature, and should not change genes at will. Others believe that genome interference can help humans correct some undesirable genes or genetic diseases and improve the quality of human life.
2. Reduction of genetic diversity
The emergence of the second generation of IVF may lead to the reduction of genetic diversity, which is also an important aspect of moral controversy. Gene editing technology can select specific genes and pass them on to the next generation, which may lead to the widespread spread of specific genes and make human genes no longer diversified.
Genetic diversity plays an important role in human evolution and adaptation to the environment. Diversity enables human beings to have higher survival opportunities in the face of environmental changes. However, gene editing technology may lead to the widespread spread of specific genes, making human genes no longer diverse. This may lead to the lack of adaptability of human beings in the face of new environmental challenges and increase the vulnerability of human populations.
3. Uncertain consequences
The IVF second-generation technology is still in its infancy, and the accurate assessment of the consequences is still not perfect. According to current scientific research, gene editing technology may cause a series of unpredictable consequences, including gene mutation, the emergence of genetic diseases and the impact of poor afterfertility.
This uncertainty has brought about moral distress. Scientists hope to correct some genetic diseases or improve human characteristics through this technology, but they cannot determine whether the consequences of this technology will exceed human expectations. Therefore, the core of moral dispute is whether science and technology have sufficient control ability to reduce uncertainty and ensure the safety of technology.
4. Social inequality
Finally, the emergence of the second generation of IVF may lead to social inequality. The application and promotion of this technology may be limited by economic conditions and social resources, resulting in that only a few people can enjoy the benefits of gene editing.
IVF II technology requires high cost and complex equipment, which limits the popularity and use of the public. If this technology can only be owned and used by the rich, it will lead to social inequality. Therefore, a key point of moral dispute is how to solve the fairness of technology application and public interest.
Summary
As a new technology, IVF II has triggered a wide range of moral disputes. These controversies mainly focus on interference with the natural genome, reduction of genetic diversity, uncertain consequences and social inequality. For these disputes, we should maintain a prudent and prudent attitude, weigh the advantages and disadvantages, and ensure the security of technology and social justice.
