Abstract
In this chapter I ask the following question: what are some of the key ethical challenges presented by radical innovations in assisted reproduction and, when possible, how should these challenges be addressed? My response to this question aims to take into account Article 16 (Protecting future generations) of the UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. While the number of ethical challenges that emerge with the radical innovation of reproductive technologies are too numerous to address in one piece of work, I aim to address a set of four critical areas of concern in this chapter. First, I make some terminological clarifications surrounding the use of the term ‘radical innovation’ in assisted reproduction. Second, I argue that the emergence of radical innovations in assisted reproduction requires that we take a more nuanced approach to use the word ‘parent’ to ensure that future ethical debates and regulations are precise and meaningful. This is crucial if the aim is to develop effective ethics and regulations to protect future generations. Third, I argue that radical innovations in assisted reproduction, such as in-vitro derived gametes, have disrupted our traditional concepts of ‘genetic relatedness’ and our perception of future offspring’s genetic constitution. Fourth, I argue that radical innovation in assisted reproduction presents society with a range of safety risks and costs, but also the promise of ultimately making reproduction safer. However, I argue that society has a responsibility to ensure that the introduction of radical innovations is translated from bench to bedside with the aim of prioritizing the safety and welfare of future generations (and their parents) and fostering trust in science.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Also known as artificial gametes, stem cell-derived gametes, and synthetic gametes.
- 2.
Other ‘radical innovations’ in assisted reproduction include, but are not limited to synthetic embryos, synthetic human entities with embryo-like features (SHEEFs), genetically edited embryos, and reproductive organoids.
- 3.
An excellent publication by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2012) on emerging biotechnologies also points out that their ‘transformative potential’ may also characterize the types of technologies I refer to. While I do not have the scope to explore this in further detail in this paper, future work in this area would benefit from expanding on this report’s work and the detailed insights it contains.
- 4.
This point is meant to counter claims that are occasionally heard in the recent UK and USA debates over how to regulate mitochondrial replacement techniques. Some attempted to argue that mitochondrial replacement techniques were just ‘fancy IVF‘and did not warrant further scrutiny. Scientifically and ethically speaking, this claim is fundamentally incorrect.
- 5.
For a more detailed account of the different methods used to create in-vitro derived gametes, see Smajdor & Cutas, 2015.
- 6.
Sparrow has identified the concern that this could result in ‘in vitro eugenics .’
References
Brake, E., & Millum, J. (2018). Parenthood and procreation. In E.N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2018 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/parenthood/
Brock, D. (2002). Human cloning and our sense of self. Science, 296, 314–316.
Cyranoski, D. (2019). The CRISPR-baby scandal: What’s next for human gene-editing. Nature, 11 March, 2019. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00673-1
Davis, N. (2019). Artificial womb: Dutch researchers given €2.9m to develop prototype. The Guardian, 8 October, 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/oct/08/artificial-womb-dutch-researchers-given-29m-to-develop-prototype
Elder, K., & Johnson, M. H. (2015a). The Oldham notebooks: An analysis of the development of IVF 1969–1978. I. Introduction, materials and methods. Reproductive BioMedicine and Society Online, 1, 3–8.
Elder, K., & Johnson, M. H. (2015b). The Oldham notebooks: An analysis of the development of IVF 1969–1978. II. The treatment cycles and their outcomes. Reproductive BioMedicine and Society Online, 1, 9–18.
Elder, K., & Johnson, M. H. (2015c). The Oldham notebooks: An analysis of the development of IVF 1969–1978. III. Variations in procedures. Reproductive BioMedicine and Society Online, 1, 19–33.
Hamzelou, J. (2016). Exclusive: world’s first baby born with new ‘3 parent’ technique. New Scientist, 27 September, 2016. https://institutions.newscientist.com/article/2107219-exclusive-worlds-first-baby-born-with-new-3-parent-technique/
Hayashi, K., Ogushi, S., Kurimoto, K., Shimamoto, S., Ohta, H., & Saitou, M. (2012). Offspring from oocytes derived from in vitro primordial germ cell-like cells in mice. Science, 338, 971–975.
Hikabe, O., Hamazaki, N., Nagamatsu, G., Obata, Y., Hirao, Y., Hamada, N., Shimamoto, S., Imamura, T., Nakashima, K., Saitou, M., & Hayashi, K. (2016). Reconstitution in vitro of the entire cycle of the mouse female germline. Nature, 539, 299–303.
Johnson, M. H., & Elder, K. (2015). The Oldham notebooks: An analysis of the development of IVF 1969-1978. IV. Ethical aspects. Reproductive Biomedicine and Society Online, 1, 34–45.
Lander, E. S., Baylis, F., Zhang, F., Charpentier, E., Berg, P., Bourgain, C., Friedrich, B., Joung, J. K., Li, J., Liu, D., Naldini, L., Nie, J.-B., Qiu, R., Schoene-Seifert, B., Shao, F., Terry, S., Wie, W., & Winnacker, E.-L. (2019). Adopt a moratorium on heritable genome editing. Nature, 567, 165–168.
Li, Z.-K., Wang, L.-Y., Wang, L.-B., Feng, G.-H., Yuan, X.-W., Liu, C., Xu, K., Li, Y.-H., Wan, H.-F., Zhang, Y., Li, Y. F., Li, X., Li, W., Zhou, Q., & Hu, B.-Y. (2018). Generation of maternal and bipaternal mice from hypomethylated haploid ESCs with imprinting region deletions. Cell Stem Cell, 23, 665–676.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics. (2012). Emerging biotechnologies: Technology, choice and the public good. Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
Oxford English Dictionary (OED). (2019a). Innovative. Available online: https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/96312?redirectedFrom=innovative#eid
Oxford English Dictionary (OED). (2019b). Novel. https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/128758?rskey=qMbi5i&result=2&isAdvanced=false#eid
Oxford English Dictionary (OED). (2019c). Radical. https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/157251?rskey=U4ddoT&result=1&isAdvanced=false#eid
Partridge, E. A., Davey, M. G., Hornick, M. A., McGovern, P. E., Mejaddam, A. Y., Vrecenak, J. D., Mesas-Burgos, C., Oliva, A., Caskey, R. C., Weiland, T. R., Han, J., Schupper, A. J., Connelly, J. T., Dysart, K. C., Rychik, J., Hedrick, H. L., Peranteau, W. H., & Flake, A. W. (2017). An extra-uterine system to physiologically support the extreme premature lamb. Nature Communications, 8., no. 15112. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15112
Ravitsky, V. (2010). Knowing where you come from: the rights of donor-conceived individuals and the meaning of genetic relatedness. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology, 11(2), 665–684.
Smajdor, A., & Cutas, D. (2015). Background paper: Artificial gametes. Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
Sparrow, R. (2014). In vitro eugenics. Journal of Medical Ethics, 40, 725–731.
Steptoe, P. C., & Edwards, R. G. (1978). Birth after the reimplantation of a human embryo. Lancet, 312(8085), 366.
UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, as amended.
UNESCO. (2005). Universal declaration on bioethics and human rights. Article 16. (19 October 2005).
Velleman, J. D. (2008). II: Gift of life. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 36(3), 245–266.
Williams, P. (1980). To Mrs. Brown a daughter. A film made for Thames television by Peter Williams TV: The Studio, Boughton, Faversham, UK.
Yamashiro, C., Sasaki, K., Yabuta, Y., Kojima, Y., Nakamura, T., Okamoto, I., Kobayashi, S., Murase, Y., Ishikura, Y., Shirane, K., Sasaki, H., Yamamoto, T., & Saitou, M. (2018). Generation of human oogonia from induced pluripotent stem cells in vitro. Science, 362(6412), 356–360.
Zhang, J., Liu, H., Luo, S., Lu, Z., Chávez-Badiola, A., Liu, Z., Yang, M., Merhi, Z., Silber, S. J., Munné, S., Konstantinidis, M., Wells, D., Tang, J. J., & Huang, T. (2017). Live birth derived from oocyte spindle transfer to prevent mitochondrial disease. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 34(4), 361–368.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Appleby, J.B. (2021). The Ethical Challenges of Radical Innovations in Assisted Reproduction. In: Tham, J., Garcia Gómez, A., Lunstroth, J. (eds) Multicultural and Interreligious Perspectives on the Ethics of Human Reproduction. Religion and Human Rights, vol 9. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86938-0_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86938-0_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-86937-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-86938-0
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)