View Full PDF

Contents

• Letter from the Editor Anand Muthusamy
  
• Bioethics in Brief
  

Articles

• The Potential of Epigenetic Therapy and the Need for Elucidation of Risks by Josh Tycko, Danielle Fields, Daniel Cabrera, Mahamad Charawi, and Bradley Kaptur Read Abstract

  Epigenetic phenomena are known to be a root cause of many common diseases. To date, the FDA has approved four epigenetic therapies that show promising results for prolonging lives of terminal cancer patients. However, there is a relative lack of knowledge about long-term epigenetic effects, especially those that affect future generations. We propose a heightening of standards for epigenetic therapy: therapies should be targeted to specific genes in specific cells and cannot affect the germline, and patients’ epigenomes should be sequenced before and after treatment. Moreover, further research should be performed to answer questions about trans-generational epigenetic effects, both to analyze the effects of altered epigenomes in the long term and to develop superior assays for screening epigenomes. We highlight current research in the field, including the work of the Penn iGEM group.

• Monetary Compensation of Research Subjects: The Shortfalls of Research Standards in Preserving Autonomy by Shivam Amin Read Abstract

  Biomedical researchers are expected to respect the autonomy of human subjects through the process of informed con-sent. The Belmont Report established the principle of respect for autonomy as a cornerstone of biomedical research ethics in 1979. However, researchers can find it difficult to uphold this ideal when compensating human subjects. Ambiguities in both the Belmont Report and government guidelines complicate pinpointing exactly how to preserve the autonomy of research subjects. The process of informed consent itself poses a set of problems for researchers. Specifically, the term “undue inducement,” describing a concept central to the preservation of a subject’s autonomy, is particularly vague and warrants further investigation. It is certainly possible that researchers can undermine a subject’s autonomy through the offer of a monetary payment. However, the magnitude of this problem is nearly impossible to measure because inconsistencies in policy make it extremely difficult for researchers to respect the principle of respect for autonomy in practice. Once some of these inconsistencies are resolved, researchers can then explore the underlying socioeconomic substructure of specific research settings. These findings will allow researchers to better gauge the extent to which individuals are unduly influenced by monetary payments, and ultimately better preserve subjects’ autonomy.

• Genetic Enhancement: Definitions, Methodologies, and the Effect of Parental Attitudes by Sarah Mayes Read Abstract

  A rapidly expanding understanding of genomics has introduced the possibility of genetically enhancing humans. Nonessential genetic enhancements may be realized in three ways: screening out the bad, selecting for the good, and engineering novel traits. With respect to parental attitudes, common deontological objections to genetic enhancement—that enhancement is wrongly motivated—suggest it encourages parental hubris, restricts children’s freedoms, and commodifies children. These deontological objections fail to consider parents’ humaneness. Namely, in deciding to have a child, parents already ascribe personhood and value to this child. Enhancement merely sets an expectation for a desired outcome and does not equate to loving a child only if that outcome is achieved. Therefore, parents capable of accepting their children while encouraging them to reach their full potential may permissibly enhance their children. Although other factors such as socioeconomic discrimination must be considered in a full discussion of the ethics of enhancement, this paper evaluates genetic enhancement solely in the context of the parent-child relationship and is meant to discuss one portion of the overall discussion of enhancement.

For information on obtaining a hard copy of Penn Bioethics Journal Vol VIII Issue ii, please see our Subscription section.