ArticleBioethics2026
Existentialism and My 'Postwolf' Dachshund: Authenticity in the Age of Genetic Engineering.
Article in Bioethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Human genetic engineering has the potential to profoundly alter the traits of future generations, raising critical ethical questions about authenticity and identity. Essentialist perspectives reject genetic engineering, claiming it inherently compromises authenticity by deviating from a species-typical genome. In contrast, this article advocates for an existentialist interpretation of authenticity, drawing on the philosophies of Heidegger and Sartre. Here, authenticity is understood as a dynamic and relational process rooted in individual choice, responsibility, and engagement with existential conditions. Unlike essentialism, existentialism evaluates genetic interventions not as inherently wrong but based on their alignment with values such as autonomy and authenticity, offering a more flexible and ethically robust framework. Existentialism's emphasis on individual freedom, self-determination, and the creation of meaning in life makes it ethically more compelling than essentialist frameworks, which impose deterministic constraints. Moreover, essentialist critiques falter when they concede the permissibility of therapeutic genetic engineering, undermining the notion of an inherently valuable species-typical human genome. In contrast, existentialism affirms the transformative potential of genetic engineering, recognising it as a means to expand autonomy, self-expression, and opportunities for flourishing when applied responsibly. The article advocates for a balanced ethical approach by integrating the Principle of Procreative Beneficence, which promotes enhancements to optimise flourishing, with the Principle of Procreative Non-Maleficence, which safeguards autonomy by preventing deterministic constraints. This complementary framework, grounded in an existentialist perspective, reframes authenticity as an evolving concept aligned with the transformative possibilities of genetic engineering, enriching the discourse on bioethics and identity in a rapidly changing era.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.