Metaphysical Risks of Early Gene Editing

Abstract Despite impressive advances, the consensus remains that we cannot yet justify creation of genetically modified babies. This paper raises a puzzle for the consensus to the extent that it rests on concerns about risks to those modified babies. Although it is hard to justify disabling someone who already exists, I argue that it is presumptively permissible to create a disabled person who would not otherwise exist. So, which kind of metaphysical risk does early editing pose? A hard to justify risk of disabling someone, or a presumptively permissible risk of creating someone who happens to be disabled? I will show how clinical and metaphysical considerations push in opposite directions, creating a dilemma for the consensus: The stronger the case that editing risks serious disability, the stronger the case that it would be an identity-altering, presumptively permissible instance of creating a disabled person.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Ethical Theory and Moral Practice
Published
2026-07-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-026-10572-w
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

Metaphysical Risks of Early Gene Editing

Mark E. Greene
Ethical Theory and Moral Practice
Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
article

Metaphysical Risks of Early Gene Editing

Mark E. Greene
article en

Abstract

Abstract Despite impressive advances, the consensus remains that we cannot yet justify creation of genetically modified babies. This paper raises a puzzle for the consensus to the extent that it rests on concerns about risks to those modified babies. Although it is hard to justify disabling someone who already exists, I argue that it is presumptively permissible to create a disabled person who would not otherwise exist. So, which kind of metaphysical risk does early editing pose? A hard to justify risk of disabling someone, or a presumptively permissible risk of creating someone who happens to be disabled? I will show how clinical and metaphysical considerations push in opposite directions, creating a dilemma for the consensus: The stronger the case that editing risks serious disability, the stronger the case that it would be an identity-altering, presumptively permissible instance of creating a disabled person.

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice
University of Delaware (US)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
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.