Regulating the use of germline genetic engineering on humans

Germline genetic engineering (GGE) technologies enable us to modify the genetic material of organisms, including humans. Since using GGE on humans comes with major possible harms, its development and use should be regulated. How should we proceed? Adopting a consequentialist normative framework, I argue that we need to avoid both overly permissive regulation – exposing stakeholders to harmful effects of GGE – and overly restrictive regulation – depriving stakeholders of the benefits of GGE. I analyse the most important factors that are likely to lead to regulation that is either too permissive or too restrictive and propose an institutional framework for policymaking in response. More precisely, I point to the need for case-by-case, constantly updated policy. I then point at the need for global policy to avoid regulation that is too permissive following in the wake of international economic competition. Finally, I identify a series of important psychological biases that are likely to lead to regulation that is too restrictive. In response, I develop a proposal to produce frequently updated global policy on a case-by-case basis in which the distorting effect of these biases is reduced as much as possible.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
South African Journal of Philosophy
Published
2025-12-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/02580136.2025.2582107
Primary Topic
Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Regulating the use of germline genetic engineering on humans

Michael Vlerick
South African Journal of Philosophy
Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
article

Regulating the use of germline genetic engineering on humans

Michael Vlerick
article en

Abstract

Germline genetic engineering (GGE) technologies enable us to modify the genetic material of organisms, including humans. Since using GGE on humans comes with major possible harms, its development and use should be regulated. How should we proceed? Adopting a consequentialist normative framework, I argue that we need to avoid both overly permissive regulation – exposing stakeholders to harmful effects of GGE – and overly restrictive regulation – depriving stakeholders of the benefits of GGE. I analyse the most important factors that are likely to lead to regulation that is either too permissive or too restrictive and propose an institutional framework for policymaking in response. More precisely, I point to the need for case-by-case, constantly updated policy. I then point at the need for global policy to avoid regulation that is too permissive following in the wake of international economic competition. Finally, I identify a series of important psychological biases that are likely to lead to regulation that is too restrictive. In response, I develop a proposal to produce frequently updated global policy on a case-by-case basis in which the distorting effect of these biases is reduced as much as possible.

South African Journal of PhilosophyVol. 44(4)
Tilburg University (NL), University of Johannesburg (ZA)
Openalex Percentile: Top 62%
Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.