Compassionate Genomics for the 21st Century - Genomic Welfare with Ethical Care for Moral Predispositions

By Ruth_Seleo @ 2025-05-28T09:37 (+23)

Preliminary Notes

While the core ideas explored in this proposal are not original, the biomedical research remains underdeveloped—discouraged by restrictive regulatory frameworks—and the topic continues to be controversial and underexplored in the public and effective altruism discourse. This work builds substantially on the theoretical frameworks developed by David Pearce—particularly Genome Reform and The Biohappiness Revolution^[1].

1. Summary

In this proposal we explore the potential of Compassionate Genomics for public health and wellbeing. The aim is to advance ethical research and implementation of heritable genome editing and establish Genomic Welfare as a voluntary reproductive and public health service to ensure wellbeing—both for individuals and future generations. This strategy to address causes of suffering at its biological roots is grounded in compassion, scientific integrity, and universal accessibility, and requires explicit attention to genetic influences on moral dispositions. This approach rejects the coercive and discriminatory practices of the past and instead promotes the wellbeing of all sentient beings.

It will be argued that the effects of the human genome are at least partially predictable—both in relation to an individual’s capacity for suffering and flourishing, and their behavioural tendencies, which impact the welfare of others and the quality of collective decision-making. As our capacity to modify these factors improves, the opportunity to develop responsible genomic welfare becomes more tangible. Supporting this trajectory may depend on well-regulated and adequately funded genomic research, alongside policy development that fosters compassionate, ethically governed infrastructures.

The current scientific, political, and societal landscape is examined, highlighting the dangers of mutation accumulation and persistent genetic harms despite medical advances. A theory of change is outlined, presenting political, scientific, and societal strategies to integrate this neglected cause area into mainstream policy. Therapeutic and preventative strategies are explored—including somatic and heritable genome interventions aimed at improving general health, extending healthspan, and supporting the long-term flourishing of future generations through advances in behavioural genomics.

Clear objectives are laid out across short-, medium-, and long-term horizons, from expanding research capacity and improving equitable access, to utilising compassionate genomics not only in global public health, but also for the future design of compassionate biospheres. Ethical safeguards are outlined in alignment with the frameworks of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), emphasising oversight, accountability, and inclusive community participation.

The post concludes by shifting the question from whether to intervene in nature to how to do so safely and ethically. It invites collaboration, critical engagement, and further exploration from researchers, policymakers, and civil society to advance this vision responsibly.

2. The Problem

Despite unprecedented advances in technology, public health and welfare, we remain shaped by — and thus fundamentally constrained by — biological mechanisms based on evolutionary processes.

Biological systems are naturally mostly inegalitarian. To maintain population adaptability, organisms undergo high mutation rates, high infant mortality and many adversities throughout their lives. Frequent hardships include diseases, exploitation, scarcity and competition for resources, and age-related decay, while ensuring high reproductive output as the basis for selection pressure to form evolutionary success.

Uncontrolled evolutionary processes—particularly natural selection— do not foster widespread wellbeing, but produce vast and recurring forms of suffering.

Although humanity has increasingly protected itself from the harsh forces of natural selection through technological, economic, medical, and welfare advances, the underlying biological processes of mutation accumulation and genetic diversification persist. In most cases, these processes harm rather than benefit the affected individuals and their descendants—and will continue to do so unless actively addressed, even if artificial general intelligence (AGI) reshapes civilisation.

If evolutionary mechanisms are accepted as unchangeable, we may come to endorse Social Darwinism^[2], discouraging compassionate welfare and health interventions.^[3] Such efforts would be seen as counterproductive to natural selection, which is assumed to be necessary for the resilience and adaptability of a species.

But rather than powerlessly enduring or ideologically defending natural suffering, we can take agency and responsibility.

Through ethical applications of heritable gene editing, we could instead someday tackle many influential root causes of suffering and repair disadvantageous mutations - accumulated over centuries in wealthy, welfare-oriented societies due to the successive, purposeful removal of many suffering inducing natural selection pressures.

By implementing Genomic Welfare programs and promoting solid genetic foundations of moral behaviour, humans could foster a world where well-being is genetically supported and sustained. The prevalence of physical and psychological suffering in all sentient beings could be addressed, while maintaining adaptability and resilience of species in the face of changing environments and existential threats.

Notably, suffering has both internal (genetic) and external (environmental and social) causes. External causes of suffering—such as poverty, violence, trauma and social inequality—place immense strain on human psychological and physiological resilience.^[4]

Most external causes of suffering can be mitigated through:

• Cultural reform that promotes moral circle expansion^[5] and prosocial values, while reducing norm-based incentives for aggression, hierarchy, and dominance.
   

• Education systems that cultivate analytical, strategic and critical thinking, as well as self-reflection, mutual understanding, and cooperative behaviour.^[6]
   

• Social policy that reduces economic precarity, marginalisation, and inequality.^[7]
   

• Accessible, equitable healthcare that promotes public health and wellbeing in holistic and sustainable ways.^[8]
   

• Built environments that are safe and support wellbeing by promoting healthy activities and strengthen community connection.^[9]

Addressing causes of suffering at its roots requires a dual approach. A sustainable long-term framework for safeguarding future wellbeing and systematically reducing preventable suffering should integrate ethically governed genomic care with comprehensive socio-environmental interventions.

Without managing genetic contributors to suffering, compensatory systems remain unsustainable in the long term.

3. Theory of Change

Ensuring Genomic Welfare and high compassionate and cooperative capabilities of future generations is foundational for mitigating global challenges of the future, yet remains underfunded in research and largely unconsidered in policy discussions.^[10]

Some philosophers and a few Effective Altruists are advocating for the development and implementation of genomic health interventions, including considerations for behavioural genomics.^[11] In 2013, the international conference “Enhancement: Cognitive, Moral and Mood”, by the Center for the Study of Bioethics and the Oxford Centre for Neuroethics, took place. Philosophers around the world explored potentials and risks for a new culture in genomics and reproduction technologies, with prominent advocates including Julian Savulescu and Peter Singer.^[12]

The WHO has also examined the significance of advancing human genome interventions and has proposed the establishment of comprehensive and robust governmental oversight. In December 2018, the WHO established a global, multidisciplinary Expert Advisory Committee on Developing Global Standards for Governance and Oversight of Human Genome Editing. The committee was tasked to examine the scientific, ethical, social and legal challenges associated with both somatic (non-heritable) and germline (heritable) editing.^[13] They provide recommendations on appropriate institutional, national, regional and global governance mechanisms. Members of the committee are drawn from all WHO regions: Africa, the Americas, South-East Asia, Europe, the Eastern Mediterranean, and the Western Pacific.^[14]

In line with those pioneers, the following theory of change was developed as part of the strategy and goals of the Compassionate Future Initiative.

Our Theory of Change includes:

• Building partnerships with political and advocacy groups with shared or overlapping objectives, including the transhumanist community, political actors and the EA community
• Organising events for networking, community growth and mobilising for high-impact initiatives
• Engaging with social and classical media outlets to engage in a balanced discourse for shifting the Overton Window

Harm and Risks to be mitigated:

Robust international governance is required to prevent unregulated experimentation and premature commercialisation of genome editing interventions. The WHO, through the Human Genome Editing (HGE) Registry and its governance framework, has begun laying out pathways for transparency, registration, and ethical oversight. These should become universal standards, especially to counteract the risks posed by medical tourism, rogue clinics, and research conducted outside legitimate oversight.

• Animal exploitation: In order to minimise risks for humans, a large amount of animal exploitation for medical research, including testing on most related non-human primates will take place. While AI will be more and more able to simulate genetic alterations, a remaining fraction of animal testing will not be avoidable for developing safe procedures for humans.

• Overcorrection and recklessness: Unregulated, commercially driven research and medical applications that lack rigorous risk analysis and government risk oversight prioritising profit over humanitarian interest.^[15] This dynamic can accelerate inequality and enable the proliferation of so-called “designer babies,” where traits are selected arbitrarily by parents without consideration for the long-term welfare of the child or the broader socio-ecological consequences. Without ethical foresight, we may create highly capable yet morally indifferent individuals — posing systemic risks analogous to those raised by unaligned AGI.

• (Authoritarian) Misuse: Risks of misuse include selectively benefiting privileged and wealthy populations and applications driven by corporate interests. And on a more systemic level, misuse could involve the co-option of genetic technologies by governments pursuing nationalistic, totalitarian and racist agendas. In such cases, behavioural genomics could be used to justify racist eugenics, enforce social hierarchies, and fuel discrimination and control.

• Institutional failure and space colonisation: If institutions fail to adequately address the risks of genetic interventions—and to communicate both those risks and mitigation strategies successfully—the positive potential of genomic welfare, along with important ethical progress, could be at risk.^[16] As harmful mutations continue to accumulate and natural selection no longer influences genetic predispositions for cooperation or moral traits, future generations may become less capable of building compassionate societies. If humanity continues to strive for space colonisation, without mitigating these genomic risks^[17] it could cause suffering on a much larger scale (S-Risks).

Cross-sector collaboration can support positive change to build the scientific, ethical, and institutional infrastructure necessary for the safe and responsible exploration of Genomic Welfare. This includes broadening the scope of sociological and behavioural genomics, supporting rigorous longitudinal safety studies, and developing governance frameworks that facilitate regulated and equitable access to emerging technologies.^[18]

4. Genomic Welfare

Genome editing involves making targeted modifications to the DNA of a cell or organism. It typically excludes mitochondrial DNA, as editing mtDNA poses distinct technical challenges. Technologies such as CRISPR-Cas9 and zinc finger nucleases enable precise edits at specific nuclear genomic loci — allowing the addition, removal, or alteration of DNA sequences.

While genome editing is often associated with altering individual genes, its applications extend to modifying regulatory regions, epigenetic markers, and larger genomic structures. Effective genome editing must consider gene–gene interactions, chromosomal context, and environmental influences — including signalling pathways that regulate gene expression and epigenetic states. These factors play a critical role in how a genetic modification will manifest phenotypically.^[19]

In human applications, genome editing can be applied to:

• Somatic cells (non-heritable),
   
• Embryos from in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) (potentially heritable)
   

• Or germ cells used for reproduction (heritable - changes passed on to future generations)^[20]

Somatic gene editing is already being used in clinical and preclinical settings to treat conditions such as HIV, sickle cell disease, and transthyretin amyloidosis, with ongoing trials targeting various cancers.^[21] These interventions are considered less ethically contentious because they do not affect future generations.

In contrast, germline or heritable human genome editing refers to editing of nuclear DNA in a way that can be passed on to offspring across generations. They pose greater safety and ethical issues than treatments only affecting an individual.^[22]

To the best of current knowledge, germline gene therapy has only been applied once in the famous, yet illegal case of He Jiankui, who in 2018 announced the birth of two babies, Lulu and Nana, whose genomes were edited in an attempt to make them immune to HIV. The case has led to international outrage, the imprisonment of He Jiankui and numerous calls for a moratorium on reproductive gene editing^[23]

Since that case, the national and international discourse on genome editing has significantly increased. National and international institutions — from the UK and US^[24] to the EU^[25], UNESCO^[26], and the World Health Organization (WHO)^[27] — have recognised the urgency of establishing robust ethical governance, transparent research infrastructure, and inclusive global dialogue around genome editing. The WHO’s Expert Advisory Committee has issued global recommendations on oversight mechanisms, clinical registries, and governance frameworks for both somatic and heritable genome editing.^[28] However, recent analyses show that governance remains highly fragmented and uneven across jurisdictions, posing significant risks of both regulatory gaps and inconsistent standards.^[29]

A compassionate genomic health system should address genetic diseases, genetic health risks and foster health resilience, thereby operating curatively, preventatively, and salutogenically (health-promoting)  — to improve public health and wellbeing sustainably for generations.

A. Curative

• Treat genetic diseases using somatic cell editing, which is already being applied to monogenic disorders and is expected to become applicable to complex polygenic conditions in the future.^[30]

B. Preventative

• Preimplantation genetic screening of embryos or preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) are already standardised practice in reproductive health, as genetic malformation are frequent and it’s health diminishing features impair the success rate of IVF and are a risk factor for complications.^[31] PGT has evolved beyond selecting for viable embryos, not only selecting for embryos with good chances of IVF success and low risk for complications, but also selection for monogenic and polygenic diseases and health risk factors.^[32] Germline gene therapy could potentially treat certain genetic malformation but more importantly target monogenic and polygenic diseases and thereby prevent emergence of inherited impairments. It could both protect an affected individual, but also their future generations.^[33]

• In addition, future germline interventions could prevent developmental conditions that cannot be resolved through somatic therapies. By modifying genetic pathways activated during early embryonic or childhood development, malformations in organ and neural development could be averted which affect a wide range of chronic health conditions, such as Cystic Fibrosis, Tay-Sachs Disease or Spinal Muscular Atrophy.^[34]

• Preventative genetic interventions may also expand healthspan by mitigating the genetic drivers of age-related physiological and cognitive decline, thereby delaying or preventing onset of age-related disease. Both somatic interventions, but probably more foundationally germline interventions could address the preprogrammed age dependent degradation, by optimising for robust DNA repair mechanisms and cellular maintenance systems.^[35]

C. Salutogenic (Health-Promoting)

• Ensure genetic predispositions that foster strong capabilities to manage life challenges
• Reduce genetic vulnerabilities to mental illness and chronic conditions

• Increase genetic factors required for resilience to psychological stress and physiological decay.^[36]

5. Ethical Care for Moral Predispositions

While considerations for genomic moral dispositions have been advocated for by moral philosophers, it remains strongly controversial in the public as it raises concerns of undermining free will or enabling governmental abuse.^[37] At the same time, positively addressing genomic moral dispositioning could be a critical role for mitigating long-term existential and suffering risks. Leaving moral predispositions to random genetic mutation, natural diversification, or reproductive choices offers no credible safeguard that future generations will retain or improve the psychological capacities needed for peaceful, cooperative, and compassionate societies. Without intervention, humanity risks accumulating traits that fuel conflict, exploitation, and social breakdown.

Yet research into the genetic foundations of moral behaviour remains critically underfunded and underexplored, leaving a major blind spot in our understanding of the biological underpinnings of social stability.^[38]

While practical application may be decades away, advancing targeted research in behavioural genetics is essential to understand future risks of inconsiderate or even harmful traits rising and could make future interventions possible. In the context of rapidly progressing genetic enhancement agendas, prioritising this research is urgent. Political will is needed to fund, regulate, and steer policies toward outcomes that are socially beneficial and ethically responsible.

Rather than prioritising narrowly defined traits such as assertiveness, ambition, or conventional measures of intelligence, a public health-oriented Genomic Welfare strategy would adopt a more holistic approach. It would aim to foster general health resilience, integrate insights from behavioural genetics, and account for moral predispositions— ensuring foundations for cooperative traits and reduced harmful impulses^[39].

While complex behavioural traits such as empathy, compassion, fairness, and impulse control remain distant targets for safe and effective germline interventions, behavioural genomics have begun uncovering their genetic correlates. Early research has already identified measurable heritability for antisocial traits, including those associated with so-called Dark Triad characteristics: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy, and is beginning to map their genomic underpinnings^[40].

Crucially, environmental factors remain critical in shaping moral development and behaviour. However, genetic predispositions can influence baseline capacities for cooperation, considerateness, and psychological resilience.^[41] 

Notably, it’s likely that not all genetic factors that may benefit mental health also motivate ethical behaviour. For example, high empathy and an expansive moral circle may correlate with increased psychological distress, while reduced sensitivity to suffering or misplaced/delusional optimism or faith might, paradoxically, offer mental health benefits in some contexts.

This paradox underscores the need for deep understanding in behavioural genetics before interventions can be implemented. However, uncertainty is not a reason to avoid the field entirely—just as uncertainty has not halted progress in other ethically complex domains such as medicine or social policy.

Considering potential long-term societal consequences, advances in rigorous, ethically governed research into the genetic basis of moral traits could be imperative. While findings remain preliminary, there is increasing evidence that polygenic, context-sensitive genetic influences play a role in shaping pro-social behaviour.^[42] Future research is likely to reveal additional complexities, underscoring the need for ongoing scientific investigation to support comprehensive understanding and responsible adaptation. Examples of genetically influenceable candidate traits include:

• Cognitive Empathy: Attentiveness and capacity to recognise sentience from behaviour, and others’ internal states from bodily expressions and various forms of communication. Dopamine beta-hydroxylase gene contributes to individuals’ empathic abilities.^[43]

• Compassion: Caring for the wellbeing of other sentient beings. The heritability appears to be 30–50% for traits like altruism and empathy, with responsible genes being linked to oxytocin/dopamine systems (e.g., OXTR).^[44]

• Fairness: Intuition and desire for equity and justice. Brain responses to unfairness (e.g., anterior insula) have genetic correlation.^[45]

• "Intelligence": In this context, it refers to a set of cognitive capabilities including systematised, analytical, and rational thinking— particularly in relation to complex, large-scale and long-term (“big-picture”) issues. Important capacities less often recognised also include sensible problem awareness with willingness and ability to face painful truths, in addition to problem-solving skills. A resistance to self-deception, motivated reasoning, and other cognitive distortions are crucial for moral behaviour, as these thought pattern corrupt good intentions.^[46]

• Behaviour Regulation: Effective behaviour regulation is closely linked to emotional regulation and the capacity for delayed gratification, as demonstrated by studies such as the Stanford marshmallow experiment. These self-regulatory capacities are important for facing emotionally challenging truths and complex problems. Motivation is also a key factor in behavioural regulation, with intrinsic motivators like curiosity and positive affect often supporting sustained, goal-directed behaviour.^[47]

Unlike traditional reproduction, which passively accepts whatever traits emerge, genetic interventions allow prospective parents (or public health systems) to make deliberate choices that could reduce the risk of suffering, disease, or maladaptive traits. This shift opens the door to germline editing as an ethical responsibility rather than a passive gamble.

Genomic Moral Enhancement has also been referred to as Involuntary Moral Enhancement^[48], contrasting it with moral bioenhancement performed with the consent of an adult individual. However, this framing indicates a contrast to natural moral predisposition, suggesting that there could ever be a moral predisposition, or any germline genomic makeup - an individual is able to consent to. Instead, with any decision made on behalf of a sentient being unable to provide informed consent, decisions need to be developed with the future interest of the individual well considered. In the context of potential compassionate enhancement, this requires ensuring that interventions do not undermine the individual's capacity for self-care, nor amplify empathic sensitivity to the point of causing psychological harm.

Notably, limitations of designing genomic predispositions in the child’s interest will remain due to unpredictability of future environments, social values, and personal identity formation. It’s important to be aware that preferences of personality traits are shaped by cultural and normative assumptions, meaning that genetic engineering could reflect parental or societal ideals more than the intrinsic good of the future person. Genetic Engineering risks substituting randomness with ideology, with unintended but significant ethical and social costs.

Still, recognising genomic moral dispositions opens up a terrain where we can, however imperfectly, reduce risk of social conflict and foster societal collaboration and peace.

Neither preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) nor germline editing is free from significant ethical concerns.^[49] While PGT allows for the selection of embryos based on health profiles, it raises the issue of valuing and devaluing life according to perceived genetic desirability. This could exacerbate social stigma against disabilities and contribute to problematic notions of “genetic worth”. It has also been argued that germline genome editing is morally preferable to embryonic selection because it will benefit the future child, whereas selection won’t, since, in the case of selection, the only alternative for the child is non-existence (e.g. Savulescu 2017). Realistically, however, these technologies will be used synergetically, with pre-modification selection and post-modification selection to ensure highest quality outcomes.^[50] 

Additionally, genetic interventions targeting complex, polygenic behavioural traits carry significant risks of unintended consequences, including trade-offs that may not become apparent until after implementation. Due to pleiotropy, genetic linkage, and epistasis, changes intended to improve one trait could have negative effects on others. germline editing requires substantial preclinical research, including extensive animal experimentation, to assess long-term safety and efficacy. Additionally, potentially thousands of human embryos may have to be used and discarded in research before the technology can be proven ‘safe enough’ before allowing actual human application.^[51]

Yet, early clinical use of any medical interventions will inevitably involve residual risk, which needs to be weighed against the hazardous effects and risks of a given condition being treated. In cases involving milder conditions, low-risk predispositions, or enhancement goals, significantly stricter safety standards should be met. As a result, early clinical applications are typically limited to severe, high-risk conditions, with broader use—including for milder or enhancement purposes—only becoming ethically justifiable as safety data demonstrates substantial improvement.^[52]

To successfully mitigate sociological, health, and wellbeing risks, it is important to situate these risks within the broader biological context. The absence of genetic monitoring or intervention does not constitute a risk-free baseline. Instead, it accepts chance and the accumulation of unfavourable mutations as inevitable. In this scenario, attraction remains the only mechanism influencing genetic quality - ensuring healthy offspring and healthy future generations. To reduce impairment risks effectively and provide the best possible genetic foundations for future wellbeing, a safe and ethically governed application of Compassionate Genomics is needed.

Robust preclinical modelling, long-term studies, and system-level impact assessments are essential. AI-assisted simulations and predictive models—informed by large-scale genomic and phenotypic data—could hereby play a central role in evaluating polygenic editing strategies prior to any clinical implementation^[53].

As initiatives like the Far Out Initiative illustrate, this work is beginning to transition from speculative ethics to tangible research and development^[54].

6. Goals

Our objectives span research advancement, ethical implementation, public policy reform, and equitable global access. These aims can be operationalised through a time-phased roadmap.

Short-Term Goals (1–10 years)

The immediate focus is to build legitimacy, ethical frameworks, and research capacity for Compassionate Genomics, establishing a foundation for safe and responsible progress.

Expand Public, Academic, and Political Recognition

The aim is the expansion of public, academic and political discourse on the compassionate application of gene therapy technologies. This will be achieved by initiating discourse and motivating responsible engagement and advocacy first among communities, already engaged in long-term impact capacity building, such as the Effective Altruism and transhumanist community. Momentum will be built through expanded networks of events, workshops, and public discussions. Over time, this engagement seeks to broaden participation among academics and policymakers, growing support for regulatory frameworks aligned with WHO recommendations. Success will be reflected in a measurable increase of supportive public discourse, policy development and scientific engagement.

Shift Narratives and engage optimistic Public Perception

Another priority is to expand the Overton Window around ethical genomic behavioural science and Genomic Welfare through narrative-shaping initiatives. This includes producing and promoting speculative fiction, documentaries, and public dialogue that challenge dystopian framings and explore the ethical promise of genetic interventions.

Additionally, we hope to increase balanced media coverage of information on successful, ethical applications of gene therapy, countering dystopian narratives and building informed public trust.

Expand Legal and Financial Support for Key Research Areas

Advocacy will seek to increase legalisation and public funding for:

• Embryonic stem cell research
   
• Preimplantation genetic testing
   
• Somatic gene therapy and monogenic disease prevention
   
• Behavioural genetics research focused on cognitive and moral capacities (e.g., empathy, compassion, fairness, behavioural regulation)
• Healthspan expansion and age-related genetic decline mitigation
   

Foster Cross-Sector Collaboration

To foster collaborative progress for the development of Genomic Welfare cross-sector exchange is needed. This can be promoted at major conferences on AI^[55] and AI alignment, germline editing research, behavioural genomics, and moral bioenhancement.

Advance European Regulatory Alignment

While the WHO has already recognised genetic health as a legitimate component of public health, European regulations currently lean toward restrictive governance.^[56] Advocacy efforts could shift the EU’s restrictive frameworks toward supportive, ethically governed regulations, following the standards set by the WHO Expert Advisory Committee on Human Genome Editing.^[57] 

Medium-Term Goals (10–30 years)

The medium-term goal is to establish the institutional, technical, and regulatory capacity necessary for the implementation of Genomic Welfare in public health systems worldwide.

• Advance the development of safe, reversible, and auditable genome editing technologies, including genetic "off-switches" and safeguards to prevent trait homogenisation or unintended epigenetic effects.
• Launch of national and international Genomic Welfare programmes that integrate curative, salutogenic, and health span extending interventions into mainstream public health strategies.
• Increased integration of behavioural genomics with considerations for genomic moral predispositions in global research priorities and policy frameworks.

• Expansion of access and independent institutional oversight, such as the formal establishment of Genomic Welfare Departments at national levels that promote and coordinate access equity and medical safety standards.^[58]

Long-Term Goals (30+ years^[59])

The long-term vision is to embed considerations for genomic moral dispositions in Genomic Welfare strategies with expanding applications among global health systems and to extend its application onto non-human animals for compassionate biosphere design.

• Widespread legalisation and tightly regulated public deployment of voluntary embryonic stem cell editing to reduce genetic impairments, elevate baseline wellbeing, increase healthspan, and ensure strong social considerateness.
• Secure formal recognition of genomic moral dispositions as important component of Genomic Welfare, for example through their adoption into WHO frameworks and potential inclusion in the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

• Develop and pilot compassionate biosphere engineering^[60]—safely managed ecosystems designed to minimise disease, predation, and parasitism. These post-Darwinian environments could serve as proof of principle that large-scale suffering reduction across species is possible in safely maintained, stable ecosystems.

7. Ethical Safeguards and Integration with Societal Systems

Compassionate genomics is grounded in principles of equity, autonomy, and human dignity. Regulations can promote ethical research and prevent risks from manipulating genetic traits without health, wellbeing and societal considerations.

The WHO Expert Advisory Committee on Developing Global Standards for Governance and Oversight of Human Genome Editing provide crucial guidelines for ethical safeguarding with national and international regulation recommendations. The following elaboration is largely based on these expansive guidelines.

Adaptation and integration into national governmental and non-governmental institutions include establishing multidisciplinary bioethics councils, overseeing that national and international progress evolves ethically and safely in accordance with WHO guidelines and other international standards.

Levels of Governance and Oversight

Effective governance must operate on institutional, national, regional, and global levels. It should cover all stages of development, implementation, and evaluation, using a range of policy tools such as declarations, treaties, legislation, and regulations. Alongside these, institutional development of ethical best practices are needed. Public access to information about laws, regulations, and ethical guidelines may be established, alongside scrutiny of data sovereignty. Particularly, genomic data from the Global South mustn’t be exploited without reciprocal benefit-sharing and governance control.

Governance of Research

High-quality research requires funding incentives, with emphasis on safety studies exploring reversibility options and side effect mitigation.^[61] To establish transparency and accountability, research data—including participant information, project details, and results—need to be mandatorily registered and responsibly shared. The WHO Global Registry for Human Genome Editing provides a practical model for such a system at the international level.^[62]

Patent and licensing frameworks can offer commercial incentives to advance research and technological development. However, patenting should not be permitted for specific genomic modifications, human embryonic cells, or stem cells, to prevent monopolisation of human biological material. International oversight is needed to prevent unethical research practices from relocating to jurisdictions with weaker regulatory systems or fewer participant protections.

Affected communities, including indigenous peoples, disability advocates, and civil society organisations, need to be consulted and heard, recognising the diverse values and lived experiences that shape attitudes toward genome editing, and to prevent racism and social injustice in research and clinical applications. Publicly funded self-governed patient groups, organised around experiences with genome editing research or treatments, further strengthens public representation and ensures that the concerns of marginalised populations are heard and addressed.

Governance of Clinical Practice

Robust oversight is equally important for the Genomic Welfare implementation with clinical application of Compassionate Genomics. Publicly funded, non-profit service models may be prioritised to ensure that humanist values take precedence over commercial motivations. Services need to be voluntary, accessible, and client-centred, offering informed consent processes, privacy protections, and clear management of potential side effects. These services may be auditable and held to consistent quality standards.

Education, accreditation, registration, and licensing systems are crucial for maintaining professional standards. Researchers and clinicians could receive formal training in evidence-based best practices and operate within structures that support continuous oversight and quality improvement. Well-funded universities and accessible pathways into higher education are essential to building the capacity needed for high-quality research, governance, and clinical care.

National regulatory bodies depend on ethical guidance from independent bioethics institutions, as well as continuous exchange with relevant professional bodies to inform the development of institutional declarations, treaties, and conventions. Governance and policy reform may require transparency and accountability, with dedicated resources for ongoing revision based on scientific, philosophical, and empirical developments.

Ethical Safeguards

The regulatory bodies need ethical guidance provided by independent bioethical institutions as well as through governmental and institutional declarations, treaties, conventions. Governance and policy reform need to be made in a transparent and inclusive way, and including means to hold policy-makers accountable for those choices.

Societal integration of Compassionate Genomics should align with global governance goals. UNESCO’s Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights (1997)^[63], and the WHO’s recommendations for inclusive engagement, call for a model that respects diversity, autonomy, and the precautionary principle while encouraging scientific progress.

The governance of germline interventions may account for the moral status and rights of future individuals who cannot give direct consent. Layered consent models—such as anticipatory, proxy, or hypothetical consent—need holistic considerations for the individual and it’s socio-environmental contexts. Such models may secure outcomes that future persons could reasonably be expected to endorse. Ethical responsibility means recognising that inaction also has consequences, leaving future generations vulnerable to preventable illnesses, impairments and suffering.

Respect for human rights and dignity rightly prohibits making almost any health intervention mandatory, and demands non-discriminatory research. Voluntary participation in research projects include informed consent, and to ensure voluntary decision-making financial compensation for research participants shouldn’t be the primary source of income. Implementation of robust safeguards may protect against coercive societal dynamics and stigma towards genetic “imperfections.” The ultimate aim of these interventions mustn’t be the pursuit of perfection, but the promotion of wellbeing.

An example of a professional organisation with guidelines on human genome editing research is the International Society for Stem Cell Research.

Other professional societies and organisations with guidelines on human genome editing are:

• the American Society of Human Genetics
• the American Society for Reproductive Medicine
• the European Society of Human Genetics
• the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology and
• the Japan Society of Human Genetics

While these various governance mechanisms may appear extensive, many necessary structures already exist and can be adapted or expanded to meet the specific demands of Genomic Welfare. To avoid institutional inefficiency, continuous evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of these systems is crucial. Governance should remain flexible and responsive, ensuring that regulatory frameworks are fit for purpose without becoming overly bureaucratic.

Finally, it is essential to recognise that Genomic Welfare is not to replace but to amplify the positive impact of systemic, cultural, socio-psychological, and educational efforts to shape a sustainable, compassionate society and biosphere.

8. Value and Impact of Genomic Welfare

The explicit potential and value of compassionate genetics in a Genomic Welfare system includes not only public health improvement but also safeguard of societal sustainable peace and support for economic flourishing and thereby has the unique potential to prevent unmeasurable amounts of future suffering.  

Advancing Public Health and Social Wellbeing

By targeting the genetic foundations of disease, disability, and psychological suffering Compassionate Genomics offers a transformative opportunity to improve population health. And by shifting focus from reactive treatment to prevention, these interventions have the potential to:

• Increase Population Wellbeing: Reduce the prevalence of chronic physical and mental health conditions, improving overall quality of life (QALY^[64] and DALY^[65]).
   

• Reduce Systemic Dependency: Lower long-term demands on social welfare, healthcare, and mental health services by preventing genetic risk factors before they manifest.
   
• Promote Social Cohesion: Enhance emotional regulation, moral capacities, and cooperative behaviours, contributing to the reduction of violence, social conflict, and other destructive behaviours.
   

Ethical and Intergenerational Responsibility

Compassionate Genomics aligns with ethical imperatives to prevent avoidable suffering and promote long-term wellbeing across generations. Key ethical contributions include:

• Reducing Involuntary Suffering at Scale: Tackling the root causes of preventable suffering through heritable genome editing.
   
• Fostering Capacity-Based Autonomy: Supporting the development of genetic traits that enable individuals to thrive, regulate behaviour, and engage morally with others.
   
• Aligning Innovation with Moral Responsibility: Embedding intergenerational ethics and long-term social responsibility into the governance of emerging biotechnologies.

Economic and Societal Resilience

Compassionate Genomics supports economic and social stability by reducing the hidden costs of genetic disease and fostering healthier, more resilient populations. Key economic benefits include:

• Cost-Effective Prevention: Reducing the long-term economic burden of genetic disorders through preventative interventions is expected to be more efficient than treating these conditions after they emerge—especially as harmful mutations accumulate across generations.
   
• Strengthening Workforce Resilience: Enhancing population health supports labour productivity, economic growth, and social stability.
   
• Fostering Socio-Economic Equity: By ensuring equitable access to genomic health services, Compassionate Genomics can reduce health disparities and strengthen inclusive social and economic development.

9. Conclusion

While responsible heritable genome editing for complex traits is not yet feasible with the limited understanding we have today, we have reached a critical point where advancing research and establishing robust governance frameworks has become a priority. Some applications, such as the prevention of monogenic diseases, are already within reach. With appropriate safeguards, transparency, and equitable access, genomic technologies hold the potential to reduce preventable suffering and contribute to building a more compassionate and cooperative future.

We call on policymakers, researchers, and civil society to take responsibility for shaping these developments. They depend on not only advancing technical capabilities but also closing governance gaps, promoting public dialogue, and ensuring that ethical frameworks keep pace with scientific progress. The question facing us today is no longer whether to intervene in nature, but how to do so wisely, ethically, and with social responsibility.

Governance models vary widely. Precautionary regulatory frameworks, such as those in the European Union^[66], prioritise risk avoidance but often fail to address the costs of inaction. In contrast, more permissive, market-driven approaches, as seen in the United States and China, risk prioritising commercial interests over long-term ethical considerations. Compassionate Genomics proposes a public-good-oriented governance model that balances precaution with the responsibility to reduce suffering, grounded in ethical oversight and equitable access.

The status quo bias that treats “letting nature take its course” as morally neutral requires critical reflection. When applying the Reversal Test^[67], we can project ourselves into a future where safe and effective interventions have become available. In such a future, how would we justify suffering from preventable genetic conditions, where harm was allowed to occur simply because it seemed more “natural” to do nothing? Framing inaction as morally neutral collapses under the ethical responsibility we would bear if safe solutions had already been within our reach.

Final remarks

As mentioned earlier, I wholeheartedly invite collaboration, critical engagement, and further exploration from researchers, policymakers, and civil society to collectively advance Compassionate Genomics and Genomic Welfare responsibly.

Many thanks in advance — and sincere appreciation to those who provided feedback throughout the development of this post.

1. ^{^}

    Pearce, David. The Biohappiness Revolution. Accessed April 19, 2025. https://www.biohappiness.com/script/index.html.

    

   Pearce, David. Genome Reform: Civilizing the Biosphere. Accessed May 17, 2025. https://www.hedweb.com/books/genome-reform-civilizing.html.

    

   Pearce, David. The Reproductive Revolution: Selection Pressure in a Post-Darwinian World. Accessed April 19, 2025. https://www.reproductive-revolution.com/.

    

   Pearce, David. Can Biotechnology Abolish Suffering? Edited by Magnus Vinding. North Carolina: The Neuroethics Foundation, 2017. https://www.hedweb.com/hedethic/biotechnology-abolish.pdf.

    

2. ^{^}

    Mike Hawkins, Social Darwinism in European and American Thought, 1860–1945: Nature as Model and Nature as Threat (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511558481.

    

3. ^{^}

    Manavis, Sarah. “The Disturbing Rise of Tech-Bro Pronatalism.” New Statesman, November 14, 2024. https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2024/11/the-disturbing-rise-of-tech-bro-pronatalism.

    

   Associated Press. “Musk Eyes Social Security and Benefit Programs for Cuts While Claiming Widespread Fraud.” Spectrum News, March 10, 2025. https://spectrumlocalnews.com/us/national/politics/2025/03/11/elon-musk-social-security-entitlement-cuts.

    

4. ^{^}

    Boyce, W. Thomas, and Bruce J. Ellis. “Biological Sensitivity to Context: I. An Evolutionary–Developmental Theory of the Origins and Functions of Stress Reactivity.” Development and Psychopathology 17, no. 2 (2005): 271–301. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579405050145.

    

5. ^{^}

    Singer, Peter. The Expanding Circle: Ethics, Evolution, and Moral Progress. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011.

    

6. ^{^}

    OECD. Social and Emotional Skills: Well-being, Connectedness and Success. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1787/6ff2c62e-en.

    

7. ^{^}

    Stiglitz, Joseph E. The Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society Endangers Our Future. New York: W.W. Norton, 2012.

    

   Esping-Andersen, Gøsta. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990.

    

8. ^{^}

    World Health Organization. World Report on Health Policy and Systems Research. Geneva: WHO, 2017. https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/255051/9789241512268-eng.pdf?sequence=1

    

9. ^{^}

    Barton, Hugh, and Marcus Grant. A Health Map for the Local Human Habitat. London: Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health 126, no. 6 (2006): 252–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466424006070466.

    

   Dannenberg, Andrew L., Howard Frumkin, and Richard J. Jackson, eds. Making Healthy Places: Designing and Building for Health, Well-Being, and Sustainability. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2011.

    

10. ^{^}

     Earp, Brian D., Anders Sandberg, and Julian Savulescu. “Moral Bioenhancement for Social Welfare: Are Civic Institutions Ready?” Frontiers in Sociology 2 (2017): 21. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2017.00021.

     

11. ^{^}

     Center for the Study of Bioethics. International Conference “Enhancement: Cognitive, Moral and Mood”, 14–16 May 2013. Accessed May 11, 2025. https://csb.eu.com/en/conferences/international-conference-enhancement-cognitive-moral-and-mood-14-16-may-2013/.

     

    Timfarkas. “Mind Enhancement: A High Impact, High Neglect Cause Area?” Effective Altruism Forum, March 24, 2022. https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/FvZmZdqHNofJyw4Xv/mind-enhancement-a-high-impact-high-neglect-cause-area.

     

    Galton. “Genetic Enhancement as a Cause Area.” Effective Altruism Forum, December 25, 2019. https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/T8eKL6xdfL4yA2kvg/genetic-enhancement-as-a-cause-area.

     

12. ^{^}

     Center for the Study of Bioethics. International Conference “Enhancement: Cognitive, Moral and Mood”, 14–16 May 2013. Accessed May 11, 2025. https://csb.eu.com/en/conferences/international-conference-enhancement-cognitive-moral-and-mood-14-16-may-2013/.

     

13. ^{^}

     World Health Organization. Human Genome Editing: Recommendations. Geneva: WHO, 2021. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240030381.

     

    World Health Organization. WHO Expert Advisory Committee on Developing Global Standards for Governance and Oversight of Human Genome Editing: Report of the Second Meeting, Geneva, Switzerland, 26–28 August 2019. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2019. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-SCI-RFH-2019-02.

     

14. ^{^}

     World Health Organization. Human Genome Editing: Position Paper. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2021. https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/342485/9789240030404-eng.pdf?sequence=1.

     

15. ^{^}

     World Health Organization. Human Genome Editing. Accessed May 19, 2025. https://www.who.int/health-topics/human-genome-editing.

     

16. ^{^}

     Bates, Timothy C. “Cognitive Rationality Is Heritable and Lies under General Cognitive Ability.” Intelligence 108 (2025): 101895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2024.101895.

     

17. ^{^}

     SpaceX. 2025. "Missions: Mars." Last modified 2025. https://www.spacex.com/humanspaceflight/mars/.

     

18. ^{^}

     Clayton, Ellen W., and Amy L. McGuire. “Ethical, Legal, Social, and Policy Implications of Behavioral Genetics.” Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 16 (2015): 369–389. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genom-090314-025843.
     

    Khoury, Muin J., Michele Gornick, Michael F. Murray, and Sheri D. Schully. “Health Equity in the Implementation of Genomics and Precision Medicine: A Public Health Imperative.” Public Health Genomics 25, no. 1–2 (2022): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1159/000521775.
     

    Conley, Dalton, and Jason M. Fletcher. “Social and Behavioral Science at the Forefront of Genomics.” Social Science & Medicine 224 (2019): 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.01.002.

     

19. ^{^}

     Daley, George Q., Robin Lovell-Badge, and Julie Steffann. “After the Storm — A Responsible Path for Genome Editing.” New England Journal of Medicine (2019). https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1900504.

     

20. ^{^}

     World Health Organization. Human Genome Editing. Accessed May 19, 2025. https://www.who.int/health-topics/human-genome-editing.

     

21. ^{^}

     World Health Organization. “WHO Issues New Recommendations on Human Genome Editing for the Advancement of Public Health.” Last modified July 12, 2021. https://www.who.int/news/item/12-07-2021-who-issues-new-recommendations-on-human-genome-editing-for-the-advancement-of-public-health.

     

    Alliance for Cancer Gene Therapy. Available Clinical Trials. Accessed May 3, 2025. https://acgtfoundation.org/for-patients/available-clinical-trials/.

     

22. ^{^}

     World Health Organization. Human Genome Editing. Accessed May 19, 2025. https://www.who.int/health-topics/human-genome-editing.

     

23. ^{^}

     Visscher, Peter M., Christopher Gyngell, Loïc Yengo, and Julian Savulescu. “Heritable Polygenic Editing: The Next Frontier in Genomic Medicine?” Nature 637 (2025): 637–645. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08300-4.

     

24. ^{^}

     National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Policy and Global Affairs, and Steve Olson, ed. Third International Summit on Human Genome Editing: Expanding Capabilities, Participation, and Access: Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2023. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK593530/.

     

25. ^{^}

     Antunes, Luísa, and Ana Nordberg. Genome Editing in Humans: A Survey of Law, Regulation and Governance Principles (Study PE 729.506). Brussels: European Parliamentary Research Service, 2022. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2022/729506/EPRS_STU(2022)729506_EN.pdf.

     

26. ^{^}

     UNESCO. Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights. Adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO at its 29th session on November 11, 1997. Accessed May 19, 2025. https://www.unesco.org/en/legal-affairs/universal-declaration-human-genome-and-human-rights?hub=387UNESCO+3Refworld+3.

     

27. ^{^}

     World Health Organization. Human Genome Editing: Position Paper. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2021. https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/342485/9789240030404-eng.pdf?sequence=1.

    World Health Organization. Human Genome Editing: Recommendations. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2021. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240030381.

28. ^{^}

     World Health Organization. “WHO Issues New Recommendations on Human Genome Editing for the Advancement of Public Health.” Last modified July 12, 2021. https://www.who.int/news/item/12-07-2021-who-issues-new-recommendations-on-human-genome-editing-for-the-advancement-of-public-health.

    World Health Organization. Human Genome Editing: A Framework for Governance. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2021. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240030060.

    World Health Organization. Human Genome Editing (HGE) Registry. Accessed May 3, 2025. https://www.who.int/groups/expert-advisory-committee-on-developing-global-standards-for-governance-and-oversight-of-human-genome-editing/registry.

29. ^{^}

     Baylis, Françoise, Marcy Darnovsky, Katie Hasson, and Timothy M. Krahn. “Human Germline and Heritable Genome Editing: The Global Policy Landscape.” The CRISPR Journal 3, no. 5 (October 2020): 365–377. https://doi.org/10.1089/crispr.2020.0082.

     

30. ^{^}

     Kirschner, Jan, and Toni Cathomen. “Gene Therapy for Monogenic Inherited Disorders: Opportunities and Challenges.” Deutsches Ärzteblatt International 117, no. 51–52 (2020): 878–885. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8045130/.

    Musunuru, Kiran, and Sekar Kathiresan. “Clinical Applications of the CRISPR/Cas9 Genome-Editing System.” Trends in Cardiovascular Medicine 33, no. 3 (2023): 179–189. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235230422300079X.

     

31. ^{^}

     American Society for Reproductive Medicine. It Takes More than One. ReproductiveFacts.org. Accessed April 20, 2025. https://www.reproductivefacts.org/patient-advocacy/advocacy-resources/it-takes-more-than-one/.

     

     Dahdouh, Elias M., Jacques Balayla, and Juan A. García-Velasco. “Comprehensive Chromosome Screening Improves Embryo Selection: A Meta-Analysis.” Fertility and Sterility 104, no. 6 (2015): 1503–1512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.08.038.

     

    Greco, Ermanno, Katarzyna Litwicka, Maria Giulia Minasi, Elisabetta Cursio, Pietro F. Greco, and Paolo Barillari. “Preimplantation Genetic Testing: Where We Are Today.” International Journal of Molecular Sciences 21, no. 12 (2020): 4381. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21124381.

     

32. ^{^}

     Strasser, Arielle. What Is the Difference between Monogenic and Polygenic Diseases? Orchid Health Guides. Accessed April 20, 2025. https://guides.orchidhealth.com/post/monogenic-vs-polygenic-diseases.

     

33. ^{^}

     Rubeis, Giovanni, and Florian Steger. “Risks and Benefits of Human Germline Genome Editing: An Ethical Analysis.” Asian Bioethics Review 10, no. 2 (2018): 133–141. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7747319/.

     

34. ^{^}

     Gyngell, Christopher. “Gene Editing and the Health of Future Generations.” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 110, no. 7 (2017): 276–279. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5524257/.

     

35. ^{^}

     Moskowitz, Clara, and Matthias Belan. “Why Some Animals Live for Only Days and Others Live for Thousands of Years.” Scientific American 332, no. 5 (2025): 94. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-some-animals-live-for-only-days-and-others-live-for-thousands-of-years/.

     

    Brooks-Wilson, Angela R. “Genetics of Healthy Aging and Longevity.” Human Genetics 132, no. 12 (2013): 1323–1338. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3898394/.

    Debrabant, Birgit, Mette Soerensen, Frank Flachsbart, et al. “Human Longevity and Variation in DNA Damage Response and Repair: Study of the Contribution of Sub-Processes Using Competitive Gene-Set Analysis.” European Journal of Human Genetics 22 (2014): 1131–1136. https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2013299.

36. ^{^}

     Wu, George, Avraham Feder, Haim Cohen, J. John Kim, Stephanie Calderon, Dennis S. Charney, and Alfred A. Mathé. “Understanding Resilience.” Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 7 (2013): 10. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnbeh.2013.00010/full.

    Cahill, Siobhán, Tarani Chandola, and Reinmar Hager. “Genetic Variants Associated with Resilience in Human and Animal Studies: A Systematic Review.” Frontiers in Psychiatry 13 (2022): 840120. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.840120.

37. ^{^}

     Clayton, Ellen W., and Amy L. McGuire. “Ethical, Legal, Social, and Policy Implications of Behavioral Genetics.” Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 16 (2015): 369–389. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genom-090314-025843.

    Rakić, Vojin. “Genome Editing for Involuntary Moral Enhancement.” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 28, no. 1 (2019): 46–54. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180118000373.

    Conley, Dalton, and Jason M. Fletcher. “Social and Behavioral Science at the Forefront of Genomics.” Social Science & Medicine 224 (2019): 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.01.002.

    Vukasović, Tena, and Denis Bratko. “Heritability of Personality: A Meta-Analysis of Behavior Genetic Studies.” Psychological Bulletin 141, no. 4 (2015): 769–785. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000017.

38. ^{^}

     Conley, Dalton, and Jason M. Fletcher. "Social and Behavioral Science at the Forefront of Genomics." Social Science & Medicine 224 (2019): 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.01.002.

    Vukasović, Tena, and Denis Bratko. "Heritability of Personality: A Meta-Analysis of Behavior Genetic Studies." Psychological Bulletin 141, no. 4 (2015): 769–785. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000017.

39. ^{^}

     Vernon, Philip A., Vanessa C. Villani, Lisa C. Vickers, and Julie A. Harris. “A Behavioral Genetic Investigation of the Dark Triad and the Big 5.” Personality and Individual Differences 44, no. 2 (2008): 445–452. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2007-18278-013.

     

40. ^{^}

     Vernon, Philip A., Vanessa C. Villani, Lisa C. Vickers, and Julie A. Harris. “A Behavioral Genetic Investigation of the Dark Triad and the Big 5.” Personality and Individual Differences 44, no. 2 (2008): 445–452. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2007-18278-013.

     

41. ^{^}

     Conley, Dalton, and Jason M. Fletcher. “Social and Behavioral Science at the Forefront of Genomics.” Social Science & Medicine 224 (2019): 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.01.002.

    Tomasik, Brian. “Reducing Long-Term Risks from Malevolent Actors.” Effective Altruism Forum, 2020. https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/LpkXtFXdsRd4rG8Kb/reducing-long-term-risks-from-malevolent-actors.

42. ^{^}

     Conley, Dalton, and Jason M. Fletcher. “Social and Behavioral Science at the Forefront of Genomics.” Social Science & Medicine 224 (2019): 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.01.002.

     

43. ^{^}

     Conway, Christopher C., and George M. Slavich. Compassion and the Human Stress Response. UCLA Stress Lab, 2017. https://www.uclastresslab.org/pubs/Conway_Slavich_Compassion_2017.pdf.

     

44. ^{^}

     Gong, Ping, Junyi Liu, Shuangyan Li, and Xiangpeng Zhou. “Dopamine Beta-Hydroxylase Gene Modulates Individuals’ Empathic Ability.” Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 9, no. 9 (2014): 1341–1345. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nst122.

     

    Conway, Christopher C., and George M. Slavich. “Behavior Genetics of Prosocial Behavior.” In Compassion: Concepts, Research and Applications, edited by Paul Gilbert, 151–170. London: Routledge, 2017. https://www.uclastresslab.org/pubs/Conway_Slavich_Compassion_2017.pdf.

     

45. ^{^}

     Wang, Yuhong, Da Zheng, Jingjing Chen, Li-Lin Rao, Shuangyan Li, and Yina Zhou. “Born for Fairness: Evidence of Genetic Contribution to a Neural Basis of Fairness Intuition.” Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 14, no. 5 (2019): 539–548. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsz031.

     

46. ^{^}

     Zhang, Shengxin, and Jianzhong Zhang. “The Association of DRD2 with Insight Problem Solving.” Frontiers in Psychology 7 (2016): 1885. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01865.

     

47. ^{^}

     Mischel, Walter, Yuichi Shoda, and Monica I. Rodriguez. “Delay of Gratification in Children.” Science 244, no. 4907 (May 26, 1989): 933–938. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.2658056.

    Miller, Rachael, Markus Boeckle, Sarah A. Jelbert, Auguste Frohnwieser, Christian A. F. Wascher, and Nicola S. Clayton. “Self-Control in Crows, Parrots and Nonhuman Primates.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 10, no. 6 (November 2019): e1504. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1504.

    Mischel, Walter, Ozlem Ayduk, Marc G. Berman, B. J. Casey, Ian H. Gotlib, John Jonides, Ethan Kross, et al. “‘Willpower’ over the Life Span: Decomposing Self-Regulation.” Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 6, no. 2 (April 2011): 252–256. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsq081.

    Gross, James J. “Emotion Regulation: Affective, Cognitive, and Social Consequences.” Psychophysiology 39, no. 3 (May 2002): 281–291. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0048577201393198.

    Jones, David T., and Jennifer Graff-Radford. “Executive Dysfunction and the Prefrontal Cortex.” Continuum (Minneapolis, Minn.) 27, no. 6 (December 1, 2021): 1586–1601. https://doi.org/10.1212/CON.0000000000001009.

    Henri-Bhargava, Alicia, Donald T. Stuss, and Morris Freedman. “Clinical Assessment of Prefrontal Lobe Functions.” Continuum (Minneapolis, Minn.) 24, no. 3 (June 2018): 704–726. https://doi.org/10.1212/CON.0000000000000609.

48. ^{^}

     Rakić, Vojin. “Genome Editing for Involuntary Moral Enhancement.” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 28, no. 1 (2019): 46–54. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180118000373.

     

49. ^{^}

     Greely, Henry T. “The Ethics of Genetic Cognitive Enhancement: Gene Editing or Embryo Selection?” Philosophies 4, no. 3 (2019): 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies4030020.

     

50. ^{^}

     Gyngell, Christopher, Thomas Douglas, and Julian Savulescu. “The Ethics of Germline Gene Editing.” Journal of Applied Philosophy 34, no. 4 (August 2017): 498–513. https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12249.

     

51. ^{^}

     European Commission: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies Opinion on the Ethics of Genome Editing. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2021. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/659034.

     

52. ^{^}

     European Commission: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies Opinion on the Ethics of Genome Editing. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2021. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/659034.

     

53. ^{^}

     Treff, Nathan R., Jacob Eccles, Daniel Marin, Ashley Fedick, and Marcin Bogdanowicz. “Utility and Ethics of Polygenic Embryo Screening: A Multidisciplinary Viewpoint.” Human Reproduction 37, no. 4 (2022): 789–801. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8510582/.

     

54. ^{^}

     Far Out Initiative. Genetic Compassion and Technological Strategies to Eliminate Involuntary Suffering. 2024. https://faroutinitiative.com.

     

55. ^{^}

     Montana, Giovanni. “Machine Learning and Genomics: Precision Medicine and Complex Trait Prediction.” In Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, vol. 1310, 109–126. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61298-6_8.

     

56. ^{^}

     Antunes, Lidia, and Ana Nordberg. Genome Editing in Humans: A Survey of Law, Regulation and Governance Principles (Study PE 729.506). Brussels: European Parliamentary Research Service, 2022. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2022/729506/EPRS_STU(2022)729506_EN.pdf.

     

57. ^{^}

     World Health Organization. WHO Issues New Recommendations on Human Genome Editing for the Advancement of Public Health. Geneva: WHO, 2021. https://www.who.int/news/item/12-07-2021-who-issues-new-recommendations-on-human-genome-editing-for-the-advancement-of-public-health.

    World Health Organization. Human Genome Editing: A Framework for Governance. WHO Expert Advisory Committee on Developing Global Standards for Governance and Oversight of Human Genome Editing. Geneva: WHO, 2021. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240030060.

58. ^{^}

     Ledford, Heidi. "Where in the World Could the First CRISPR Baby Be Born? A Look at the Legal Landscape Suggests Where Human Genome Editing Might Be Used in Research or Reproduction." Nature 526, no. 7573 (2015): 310–311. https://doi.org/10.1038/526310a.

     

59. ^{^}

     According to Nature (2025) sophisticated polygenic genome editing in human embryos could be the achievable within 30 years.

    Nature. "We Need to Talk About Human Genome Editing." Nature, January 8, 2025. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00015-4.

     

60. ^{^}

     Pearce, David. The Hedonistic Imperative. 1995. https://www.hedweb.com/.

61. ^{^}

     Wild Animal Initiative. “Persistence and Reversibility in Wild Animal Suffering Interventions.” Wild Animal Initiative, 2024. https://www.wildanimalinitiative.org/blog/persistenceandreversibility.

     

62. ^{^}

     World Health Organization. Human Genome Editing (HGE) Registry. Accessed May 3, 2025. https://www.who.int/groups/expert-advisory-committee-on-developing-global-standards-for-governance-and-oversight-of-human-genome-editing/registry.

     

63. ^{^}

     UNESCO. Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 1997.

     

64. ^{^}

     Nord, Erik. Cost-Value Analysis in Health Care: Making Sense out of QALYs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

     

65. ^{^}

     Anand, Sudhir, and Kara Hanson. “Disability-Adjusted Life Years: A Critical Review.” Journal of Health Economics 16, no. 6 (1997): 685–702. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6296(97)00005-2.

66. ^{^}

     Antunes, Luís, and Anna Nordberg. Genome Editing in Humans: A Survey of Law, Regulation and Governance Principles (Study PE 729.506). Brussels: European Parliamentary Research Service, 2022. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2022/729506/EPRS_STU(2022)729506_EN.pdf.

     

67. ^{^}

     Bostrom, Nick, and Toby Ord. “The Reversal Test: Eliminating Status Quo Bias in Applied Ethics.” Ethics 116, no. 4 (2006): 656–79. https://doi.org/10.1086/505405.