Nuffields moral perspectives on genome editing are essentially the same as the Dalai Lama’s. They both heavily revolve around the importance of social justice and understanding the consequences of scientific discoveries. In the Dalai Lama’s essay on genome editing he mentions his own list of key ethical factors (70). The second factor in his list stresses the importance of “taking due regard of both short-term and long-term consequences” (The Dalai Lama, 70). Nuffield also includes perspectives such as welfare and risk that discuss the potential outcomes of genome editing (Nuffield). It’s apparent that both authors are extremely passionate about the effects that huge scientific discoveries can have on society. They both seem to want to prevent these scientists from using their discoveries badly.
Nuffields moral perspectives are definitely a prototype of a moral compass that could be presented to the scientific community. The tenets describe little things that scientists can do to avoid the potential consequences or effects of genome editing (Nuffield). His 6 perspectives are very clear and precise, after all if they are being taught to scientists, it shouldn’t be too hard for them to understand. I think the scientific community would not take these moral “rules” well. It’s possible that they would either be offended by them or they would feel like the “rules” would hold them back from furthering their research. A lot of scientists motivations do not include compassion or the well being of others. They may believe that others will have to sacrifice in the name of science.
