Scholarlink

<p>Interventions in the human genome represent a&#xa0;highly advanced biomedical procedure that, due to its irreversibility, has given rise to highly controversial bioethical debates. This paper examines positions in the bioethical discourse on human genome editing. Based on a&#xa0;corpus of texts, including media articles, parliamentary debates, and statements from interest groups, four central positions are identified: technologies cause harm, technologies cause coercion, technologies enable autonomy, and technologies offer benefits. The discourse is analyzed both linguistically and in terms of content, with a&#xa0;focus on metaphors and topoi that shape societal thought patterns. Moral opposition to genome editing is particularly expressed through the <i>objectification of humans</i>, which refers to the devaluation of human life. Health risks, such as <i>off target effects</i>, play a&#xa0;secondary role compared to morally justified arguments. On the other hand, supportive positions emphasize the societal and health benefits, framing the prevention of hereditary diseases as a&#xa0;service to society. The question of autonomy is only marginally addressed, mostly in relation to reproductive freedom. Overall, the analysis shows that the discourse on genome editing is strongly shaped by moral and ethical arguments, while health and technological aspects tend to recede into the background. This paper contributes to linguistic discourse analysis and provides insights into the linguistic construction of bioethical debates, particularly with regard to the relationship between humans and technology.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

»Der Abgrund der neuen Technik ist der Mensch, der sich nach eigenem Gutdünken umbaut«

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年4月22日

查看全文
  • Lesley-Ann Kern

摘要

Interventions in the human genome represent a highly advanced biomedical procedure that, due to its irreversibility, has given rise to highly controversial bioethical debates. This paper examines positions in the bioethical discourse on human genome editing. Based on a corpus of texts, including media articles, parliamentary debates, and statements from interest groups, four central positions are identified: technologies cause harm, technologies cause coercion, technologies enable autonomy, and technologies offer benefits. The discourse is analyzed both linguistically and in terms of content, with a focus on metaphors and topoi that shape societal thought patterns. Moral opposition to genome editing is particularly expressed through the objectification of humans, which refers to the devaluation of human life. Health risks, such as off target effects, play a secondary role compared to morally justified arguments. On the other hand, supportive positions emphasize the societal and health benefits, framing the prevention of hereditary diseases as a service to society. The question of autonomy is only marginally addressed, mostly in relation to reproductive freedom. Overall, the analysis shows that the discourse on genome editing is strongly shaped by moral and ethical arguments, while health and technological aspects tend to recede into the background. This paper contributes to linguistic discourse analysis and provides insights into the linguistic construction of bioethical debates, particularly with regard to the relationship between humans and technology.