He Jiankui’s controversial CRISPR baby experiment sparks debate on the role of moral luck in science.
Key Facts:
- He Jiankui claimed to have used CRISPR to genetically modify human embryos, resulting in the birth of genetically edited twin girls.
- This was done without sufficient preclinical research or global consensus, violating norms and regulations.
- The outcomes of such risky experiments are beyond the scientist’s control, raising issues of moral luck.
- If successful with no harmful effects, perceptions of He’s recklessness may change despite initial universal condemnation.
- Historical cases like Edward Jenner’s smallpox vaccination suggest moral luck affects praise and blame of scientists.
- Policies sanctioning scientists rely on attributions of responsibility, but consequences beyond control also shape legacies.
- The paradox leaves open questions about whether uncontrolled outcomes should influence responsibility judgments.
Chinese Scientist He Jiankui: CRISPR Babies
In November 2018, Chinese biophysicist He Jiankui dropped a bombshell at a scientific conference in Hong Kong.
He claimed to have successfully used the CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing technique to modify the DNA of human embryos, resulting in the birth of twin girls resistant to HIV infection.
This pronouncement sent shockwaves through the scientific community worldwide.
Leading scientists and ethicists almost universally condemned He’s actions as reckless and irresponsible, flouting international norms and consensus.
CRISPR had previously only been used to edit genes in adult humans for somatic cell therapy, not in human embryos or the germline, where changes affect future generations.
He outlined his rationale as wanting to confer natural resistance to HIV infection, but provided minimal data or proof.
The consensus was clear that risks far outweighed this unmet need, with unknown effects on the twins’ future health or genome integrity.
Many feared He’s drastic step threatened public trust in the promising field of gene editing.
A Debate Emerges: CRISPR Editing Humans
The near universal condemnation of He’s actions stemmed from the view he recklessly and unethically crossed red lines by subjecting children to unnecessary risks and ignoring scientific and ethical norms.
However, the situation also epitomizes the phenomenon of moral luck in science.
The full effects of He’s germline modifications remain uncertain, with the outcomes beyond his control.
Despite acting in violation of consensuses and guidelines, if his experiment proves successful and beneficial over the long-term with no adverse consequences, perceptions of his culpability may transform.
Though initially viewed as a rogue figure, he may eventually seem a scientific pioneer who spearheaded a revolution in genetic medicine.
This possibility reveals a moral paradox where factors outside a scientist’s control retroactively shape the praise or blame ascribed to their actions.
Philosophers term this “moral luck” – when contingent factors affect judgments of moral responsibility.
He knowingly took actions judged unethical and dangerous, but we cannot yet know the full implications.
If the babies remain healthy and new therapies emerge through germline gene editing, his reputation may undergo a reversal, despite initial condemnation.
Jenner’s Smallpox Vaccine – An Analogous Case of Moral Luck
This phenomenon has precedents in medical history, as the development of vaccines illustrates.
In 1796, Edward Jenner inoculated an 8-year-old boy named James Phipps with live smallpox, based on his theory that inoculation with cowpox would provide immunity.
This life-threatening experiment was met with skepticism by contemporaries.
However, Phipps survived and Jenner’s vaccine ushered in the eventual eradication of the dreaded smallpox virus.
Today Jenner is heralded as a medical pioneer and hero who made a major contribution to global health, despite initial doubts.
However, had the risky procedure gone awry and led to the child’s death, we would remember Jenner as reckless rather than visionary.
The line between praise and condemnation is thin, subject to the uncontrollable factor of consequences.
Science Policy: What if Germline Editing is Safe & Beneficial?
The paradox of moral luck has implications for science policy and the judgment of scientific legacies.
Policies that sanction unethical actions depend on ascribing responsibility.
However, factors beyond a scientist’s control may nullify or override initially perceived transgressions, rehabilitating reputations in retrospect.
Does uncontrolled luck warrant influence on posterity’s views?
An alternative is to disregard outcomes in judging actions.
But this seems unsatisfying, as achievements garner acclaim and mishaps blame, shaping enduring perceptions that transcend original deeds.
The CRISPR case lays bare open questions of whether consequences should sway assessments of responsibility and historical memory.
If germline editing proves revolutionary, will He’s name evoke praise or warning?
The verdict remains contingent and thus subject to moral luck’s paradoxical influence.
As human understanding progresses, facts cast new light on our flawed attempts at detached judgment.
Potential Benefits of CRISPR Edits to Consider
While nearly all agree He acted prematurely given current knowledge, the potential benefits of germline gene editing are also widely acknowledged.
Proposed ethical frameworks recognize its eventual utility if safety and consensus requirements are met.
The proposed interventions could prevent horrific genetic conditions, reshaping medicine.
This prospect may contextualize He’s impatience to move the technology forward, though not justify ignoring norms and endangering lives.
A balanced view should acknowledge this tension between premature risks and hopes for healing once mastered.
Our assessments are limited by the present state of knowledge.
With hindsight, future generations may applaud unlocking the technology’s potential, despite initial stumbles.
The fruits of science often germinate from radical ideas, gradually normalized by acceptance.
The Need for Nuanced Analysis Beyond Simple Judgments
The issues raised resist binary verdicts of justified or reckless, ethical or unprincipled.
Simple blanket denunciations grow inadequate with time’s passage.
A complete picture requires nuanced analysis of motives, means and unpredictable ends in applying risky innovations for medical progress.
Did overzealousness in pursuing a worthy goal, human health and disease eradication, play a role alongside ethical breaches? The lines demarcating daring and foolhardy are blurrier in hindsight.
The gravity of charges also pales somewhat if vast suffering is relieved by ultimate gains, lives saved down the line.
These complexities make moral luck an inherent challenge when assessing controversial medical advances and those linked to them. Judgments evolve alongside consequences in light of hopes and hazards tied to pushing boundaries. An absolutist stance becomes untenable.
Unintended Consequences Cloud Definitive Judgments
He intended to help humanity but may have set progress back through loss of trust.
Jenner sought disease eradication but might have killed his patient.
Outcomes diverge from aims via forces outside inventors’ control, obscuring clear-cut verdicts.
Yet alternative futures always exist untrod, immune to moral luck’s erasing of past intentions.
Deliberate defiance of norms warrants acute concern as paths not taken linger hypothetical.
But moral luck equally clouds harsh condemnations, as uncontrolled results blur responsibilities.
Perhaps the solution lies in the eye of history, permitting reappraisal as paradigm shifts hoist innovators onto new planes.
Exceptional cases defy conventions, for good or ill, in manifold ways blind to contemporaries.
Conclusion: A Nuanced Debate Lies Ahead
The issues raised by He’s controversial experiment reveal moral luck’s role in science, cautioning against definitive judgments.
The paradox leaves open whether uncontrolled results should sway assessments of responsibility and legacy.
With the outcomes uncertain, the full implications await time’s passage.
But the issues of scientific ethics and progress versus peril are complex, requiring thoughtful analysis that resists knee-jerk reactions.
As for He, the final calculation relies on factors beyond reach, subject to moral luck’s fickle judgments.
Humanity must grapple with balancing bold leaps into the unknowns of science with care for present lives.
Seeking this wisdom demands perspective wider than initial shock and simplistic scorn.
The debate promises to be nuanced and enduring, propelled by hopes and fears around playing god.
References
- Study: After the fact – the case of CRISPR babies
- Authors: Martin Sand et al. (2019)
