Final answer:
John Harris argues for the responsible use of gene therapy while considering both positive and negative outcomes, advocating for regulation rather than unrestricted use. He distinguishes between somatic cell interventions and germ-line interventions, noting the inheritable nature and ethical complexities of the latter.
Step-by-step explanation:
John Harris has provided extensive arguments regarding the ethics and potential use of gene therapy. He does not believe that gene therapy is ethically unsound, rather he sees the potential for gene therapy to greatly improve the quality of life by curing or preventing illness and eliminating certain forms of disability. Harris argues that it is crucial to consider both the benefits and harms of gene editing technologies in a responsible manner, suggesting a utilitarian approach to evaluate their use. This necessitates a balance between the positive outcomes, such as improved therapies, and negative outcomes, which may include widening social inequalities or introducing new forms of discrimination. Harris is known to advocate for the regulation of gene therapy rather than its unrestricted use, reflecting the broad consensus within the scientific community and among bioethicists.
One major area of concern for Harris and other ethicists involves distinctions between somatic cell and germ-line interventions. Somatic cell interventions affect only the individual receiving therapy and do not impact future generations since the modifications are not inheritable. In contrast, germ-line interventions could result in changes that would affect the genetic makeup of future generations, leading to complex ethical issues about consent and long-term effects on human genetic diversity. Germ-line gene therapy carries significant implications for both individuals and society, which is why it frequently features in discussions about the ethics of inheritable genetic modification.