Der chinesische Menschenversuch

Samstag 15.12.2018

Bucherscheinung Braun / Schickl / Dabrock: Between Moral Hazard and Legal Uncertainty. Ethical, Legal and Societal Challenges of Human Genome Editing. Das Lulu/Nana Video liegt jetzt bei 318.233 Aufrufen. Off-target Voraussagen beim Mensch sind praktisch unmöglich, so meine Analyse von heute morgen. Manchen englische Ethikern sind zum Fürchten.

Aus den Slides von Peter Mills, Nuffield Council on Bioethics, Hongkong.

Aber wir wissen ja, dass die Engländer bei E&E (Europe&Ethics) hier anders ticken. Wie ist es zu bewerten, dass trotz des ähnlichen oder gar gleichen Kulturkreises das Genome-Editing in Großbritannien und Deutschland unterschiedlich gehandhabt wird?

„Man muss mit dem Pluralismus konkurrierender Ethiktraditionen in Europa umgehen“, antwortete Graf. Die Rede vom gemeinsamen Kulturkreis sei auch insofern nicht unproblematisch, als es bekanntermaßen sehr unterschiedliche geistesgeschichtliche Hintergründe der Argumentationen in beiden Ländern gebe. Insgesamt, so Seibert- Fohr, könne man nur „auf den Konsens aufbauen, den wir in Form der Menschenrechte“ haben.

Angeblich hat He Jiankui auch die falsche Ethik-Kommission gefragt, soll jedenfalls  Y.M. Dennis Lo, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, gesagt haben.

Das Hastings Center über die Unterschiede zwischen chinesischer und westlicher Ethik.

Is this really the right way to look at things? Our answer is, no. The evidence doesn’t bare these beliefs out; it is a misdiagnosis, and it risks obscuring the real issues that He Jiankui’s experimentation raises. Since the news on the gene-edited babies came out on November 26 via Baidu and Google, one of us (Nie) has been closely following reactions to it in journalists’ reports, commentaries, and posts on Chinese and international mass media, as well as on China’s major social media platforms, Weibo and WeChat. The belief that China is ethically distinct from the West might suggest that He’s news has been widely or even universally welcomed in China. But this is simply false. Almost immediately after He’s announcement, 122 Chinese scientists issued a passionate public statement that they “Firmly oppose!!!” and “Strongly condemn!!!” He’s acts (exclamation marks included in the statement). Within a few days, more than 300 other Chinese scientists and scholars set out to confront the issues through “Ten Questions to He Jiankui.” These two documents have since been widely circulated via mass media and social media… The general public in China are remarkably similar to the words used in the Western media about He’s experiments. They include more restrained terms such as “unethical,” “immoral,” “wrong,” “irresponsible,” and “reckless.” They also include stronger and more emotive ones: He has been described as “mad,” and a “scientific lunatic,” and his experiments as “monstrous,” “disgusting,” “repulsive,” “inhuman,” “cruel,” “horrible,” “barbaric,” and “atrocious.”