From Frankenstein to gene therapy, a collective responsibility. A glance from (bio)ethics

Elisa Constanza Calleja-Sordo, Jorge Enrique Linares, Elena Arriaga-Arellano


Given the recent developments in biotechnology and genetic engineering, the ability to eliminate genetic diseases from the human genome seems more and more possible each day. Being able to do so would mean a better quality of life for those who would otherwise suffer from incurable genetic diseases.

However, even though the success of such a procedure would bring benefits that cannot be obtained by other means, the consequences for humans are still unknown. As such, the people involved should be held responsible.

The responsibility needs to be collective, not individual, because the decisions leading to the edition of a human genome and someone being born as a result of it are not made by a single individual, but several people, from the prospective parents interested in the intervention for their future child to the ones in charge of performing said intervention.

The addition of the human genome can bring significant benefits, and it seems to be the only way to avoid certain genetic diseases; however, collective responsibility should be taken by those involved in the decisions that lead to a person being born with a modified genome.


modificación genética; bioética; ética médica; genoma humano; enfermedad genética


Berg, P., Baltimore, D., Brenner S., Roblin III, R. O., Singer, M. F. (1975). Summary Statement of the Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA Molecules. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 72(6): 1981–1984. doi:

Blaese, R. M. et al (1995). Lymphocyte-Directed Gene Therapy for ADA− SCID- Initial Trial Results After 4 Years. Science, 270(5235): 475–480. doi:

Bratman, M. E. (1992). Shared Cooperative Activity. The Philosophical Review, 101(2): 327-341. doi:

Jonas, Hans (2015). El principio de responsabilidad. Ensayo de una ética para la civilización tecnológica. España: Herder.

Kosicki, M., Tomberg, K., Bradley, A. (2018). Repair of double-strand breaks induced by CRISPR-Cas9 leads to large deletions and complex rearrangements. Nature biotechnology, 36(8): 765–771. doi:

Ledford, Heidi. (2019): Super-precise new CRISPR tool could tackle a plethora of genetic diseases. Nature, 574: 464-465. doi:

LeMieux, J. (2018): Another "CRISPR Calamity"? U.K. Team Reports CRISPR-Induced Gene Rearrangements. Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News. Consulta: 11/08/2020

Liang, P. et al (2015): CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes. Protein & cell, 6: 363–372. doi:

Luria, S. E. (1968). The Microbiologist and His Times. Bacteriological Reviews, 32(4): 401–403.

Ma, H. et al (2017). Correction of a pathogenic gene mutation in human embryos. Nature, 548: 413-419. doi:

Miller, S. (2001). Collective Responsibility. Public Affairs Quarterly, 15(1): 65–82.

Regalado, A. (2018). Turns out CRISPR editing can also vandalize genomes. MIT Technology Review. Consulta: 11/08/2020

Rogers, S., Lowenthal, A., Terheggen, H. G., Columbo, J. P. (1973). Induction of Arginasa Activity with the Shope Papilloma Virus in Tissue Culture Cells From an Argininemic Patient. Journal of Experimental Medicine, 137(4): 1091–1096. doi:

Shelley, Mary (2000). Frankenstein o el moderno Prometeo. España: Ediciones Siruela.

Nobel Media AB. (2020). Renato Dulbecco-Facts. The Nobel Prize. Consulta: 11/08/2020

Wirth, T., Parker, N., Ylä-Herttuala, S. (2013). History of gene therapy. Gene, 525(2): 162–169. doi:


Copyright (c) 2020 Humanities Journal of Valparaíso

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.