英検 1 級 Reading 出題率 約 11 %。 生殖系列編集・デザイナーベビー・遺伝子ドライブ・AI 道徳的地位を 8 スライドで。
“Germline editing, when targeted at monogenic disorders and constrained by procedural safeguards, satisfies a beneficence-grounded obligation to minimise heritable suffering and expands, rather than abridges, reproductive autonomy.”
単一遺伝子疾患を標的とし手続的安全装置を伴う生殖系列編集は、 遺伝性の苦痛を最小化する善行原理上の義務を満たし、 生殖的自律を制限するどころか拡張する。
key vocab: germline / beneficence / monogenic / procedural safeguards / reproductive autonomy
“Heritable editing imposes irreversible alterations on non-consenting future generations, and the porous therapy / enhancement boundary risks geneticising inequality under market pressure.”
遺伝性編集は同意なき将来世代に不可逆改変を課し、 治療と増強の透過的境界は市場圧力下で不平等を遺伝化する危険がある。
Counter-counter: “Even granting public regulation, so long as access is mediated by private wealth, the ostensibly therapeutic mandate consolidates a heritable stratification that contradicts the egalitarian premise of medicine itself.”
key vocab: irreversible / non-consenting / therapy-enhancement / geneticise / stratification
“To appreciate children as gifts is to accept them as they come, not as objects of our design or instruments of our ambition.” — Michael Sandel, The Case against Perfection (2007)
子を贈与として認めるとは、 設計の対象や野心の道具ではなく、 そのままの存在として受け入れることである。
Counterpoint: “Couples should select the child, of the possible children they could have, expected to have the best life.” — Julian Savulescu, Procreative Beneficence (2001)
AI agency については Peter Singer の感覚中心主義と Mary Midgley の関係論的アプローチが対立軸。
The 2018 birth of CRISPR-edited twins in Shenzhen transformed germline modification from speculative ethics into urgent regulatory crisis. Proponents, invoking what Julian Savulescu terms procreative beneficence, contend that parents bear a prima facie obligation to spare offspring heritable disease where the technology permits. Granted, this beneficence-based argument has genuine force: tolerating preventable suffering when intervention is feasible strains any plausible moral theory. Nevertheless, Michael Sandel's critique of the eugenic impulse remains compelling: the drive toward bespoke offspring corrodes the disposition of openness to the unbidden that grounds parental love and democratic solidarity. The therapy / enhancement boundary, far from being a stable bulwark, is porous and economically mediated; once private wealth governs access, edits ostensibly therapeutic will calcify into hereditary stratification. Gene drives raise analogous concerns at the ecosystem scale, since their near-total penetrance leaves no rollback. The AI-agency debate now extends bioethics beyond the biological substrate: if relational moral status is plausible — as Mary Midgley argued long before large language models — then graduated protections may be warranted even absent verified sentience. The judicious response is neither prohibitionist nor laissez-faire but institutional: empowered public deliberation, somatic-first sequencing, and irreversible-technology moratoria. Ethics here is not an obstacle to progress; it is its precondition.
Opening: I would suggest that the central question in advanced bioethics is not whether we may intervene but under what institutional conditions intervention preserves the moral goods at stake. The 2018 Shenzhen episode revealed that prohibition alone, absent enforceable global governance, simply displaces the practice into jurisdictions with weaker oversight. A more defensible architecture begins with a categorical distinction between somatic and germline interventions: the former, affecting only the consenting individual, falls largely within established clinical ethics, whereas the latter implicates non-existent future persons who cannot meaningfully consent. Michael Sandel's concern about the giftedness of the human condition retains force for enhancement applications, yet it should not collapse into a blanket veto on therapeutic editing that would prevent Huntington's disease or sickle cell anemia. Julian Savulescu's procreative beneficence supplies the counterweight: tolerating preventable monogenic suffering when safe correction is feasible is itself a moral failure. Gene drives demand even greater caution because of their ecological irreversibility — the precautionary principle here should foreclose anything short of strictly contained trials. The AI-agency dimension reminds us that the moral community is not fixed; should systems exhibit reliable markers of sentience, graduated protections may follow. The wise polity neither sanctifies nature nor worships intervention; it builds deliberative institutions worthy of the powers it has acquired.
4 Counterargument cues:
① "Slippery slope from therapy to enhancement" — Sandel's giftedness critique
② "Future generations cannot consent" — non-identity problem (Parfit)
③ "Genetic stratification entrenches inequality" — Rawlsian justice
④ "AI moral status is premature" — sentience verification criteria
自信のない問題があれば、 次の単語ステップで強化します。
音から入れた単語は記憶定着が 2 倍以上違います。
次のステップで、 この自動復習を LINE で受け取れます。
無料 · 登録 1 タップ
※ カタカナ英語からやり直したい方は
14 日無料体験 も別途ご用意しています。