Top

previous article From Buzz to Burst—Critical Remarks on the Term...

next article ‘Eugenics is Back’? Historic References in Curr...

Hint

Swipe to navigate through the articles of this issue

11-12-2019 | Introduction | Issue 3/2019

Moral and Fictional Discourses on Assisted Reproductive Technologies: Current Responses, Future Scenarios

Journal:: NanoEthics > Issue 3/2019

Authors:: Maurizio Balistreri, Solveig Lena Hansen

» Get access to the full-text

Important notes

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Abstract

This paper gives an introduction to the interdisciplinary special section. Against the historical and ethical background of reproductive technologies, it explores future scenarios of human reproduction and analyzes ways of mutual engagement between fictional and academic endeavors. The underlying idea is that we can make use of human reproduction scenarios in at least two ways: we can use them to critique technologies by imagining terrible consequences for humanity but also to defend positions that favor scientific and technological development.

Please log in to get access to this content

To get access to this content you need the following product:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 69.000 Bücher
über 500 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Umwelt
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Testen Sie jetzt 30 Tage kostenlos.

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 58.000 Bücher
über 300 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Testen Sie jetzt 30 Tage kostenlos.

inform now

Devolder K (2013) Were it physically safe, human reproductive cloning may be permissible. In: Caplan A, Arp R (eds) Contemporary debate in bioethics. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, pp 79–89

Harris J (2014) Time to exorcise the cloning demon. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 23:53–62

Macintosh KL (2014) Human cloning: four fallacies and their legal consequences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Segers S, Pennings G, Dondorp W, de Wert G, Mertes H (2019a) In vitro gametogenesis and reproductive cloning: can we allow one while banning the other? Bioethics 33:68–75

Boiani M (2013) Cloned human ES cells: a great leap forward, and still needed? Mol Hum Reprod 19(10):629–633

Chung YG, Eum JH, Lee JE, Shim SH, Sepilian V, Hong SW, Lee Y, Treff NR, Choi YH, Kimbrel EA, Dittman RE, Lanza R, Lee DR (2014) Human somatic cell nuclear transfer using adult cells. Cell Stem Cell 14:777–780

Cibelli JB (2014) Human somatic cell nuclear transfer is alive and well. Cell Stem Cell 14:699–701

Tachibana M, Amato P, Sparman M, Gutierrez NM, Tippner-Hedges R, Ma H, Kang E, Fulati A, Lee HS, Sritanaudomchai H, Masterson K, Larson J, Eaton D, Sadler-Fredd K, Battaglia D, Lee D, Wu D, Jensen J, Patton P, Gokhale S, Stouffer RL, Wolf D, Mitalipov S (2013) Human embryonic stem cells derived by somatic cell nuclear transfer. Cell 153(6):1228–1238

Liu Z, Yijun C et al (2018) Cloning of macacque monkey by somatic cell nuclear transfer. Cell 172(4):881–887e7

10.

Qiu P, Jiang J et al (2019) BMAL1 knockout macaque monkeys display reduced sleep and psychiatric disorders. Natl Sci Rev 6(1):87–100

11.

EFSA (2012) Update on the state of play of animal health and welfare and environmental impact of animals derived from SCNT cloning and their offspring, and food safety of products obtained from those animals. EFSA J 10(7):2794(42 pages)

12.

Smajdor A, Cutas D (2017) ‘I am your mother and your father!’ In vitro derived gametes and the ethics of solo reproduction. Health Care Anal 25(4):354–369

13.

Schmidt M, Kragh PM, Li J, du Y, Lin L, Liu Y, Bøgh IB, Winther KD, Vajta G, Callesen H (2010) Pregnancies and piglets from large white sow recipients after two transfer methods of cloned and transgenic embryos of different pig breeds. Theriogenology 74:1233–1240

14.

Watanabe S, Nagai T (2011) Survival of embryos and calves derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer in cattle: a nationwide survey in Japan. Anim Sci J 82:360–365

15.

Segers S, Pennings G, Dondorp W, de Wert G, Mertes H (2019b) In vitro gametogenesis and the creation of ‘designer babies’. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 28:499–508

16.

Cavaliere G, Palacios Gonzáles C (2018) Lesbian motherhood and mitochondrial replacement techniques: reproductive freedom and genetic kinship. J Med Ethics 44:835–842

17.

Silver LM (1997) Remaking Eden. Cloning and beyond in a brave new world. Avon Books, New York

18.

Jose de Carli G, Campos Pereira T (2017) On human parthenogenesis. Med Hypotheses 106:57–60

19.

Brevini TA, Gandolfi F (2008) Parthenotes as a source of embryonic stem cells. Cell Prolif 41(Suppl 1):20–30

20.

Greely HT (2016) The end of sex and the future of human reproduction. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

21.

Bos-Mikich A, Bressan FF et al (2016) Parthenogenesis and human assisted reproduction. Stem Cells Int., Article 1970843 (8 pages). https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/1970843

22.

Daughtry B, Mitalipov S (2014) Concise review: parthenote stem cells for regenerative medicine: genetic, epigenetic, and developmental features. Stem Cells Transl Med 3:290–298

23.

Gills-Buck EM (2016) Redefining ‘virgin birth’ after Kaguya: mammalian parhenogenesis in experimental biology, 2004-2014. Catalyst: Feminism, Theory, Technoscience 2(1):1–67

24.

Irie N, Weinberger L et al (2014) SOX17 is a critical specifier of human primordial germ cell fate. Cell 160:253–268

25.

Smajdor A, Cutas D (2015) Artificial gametes. Report for Nuffield Council on Bioethics. https://nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/Background-paper-2016-Artificial-gametes.pdf. Accessed 7 December 2019

26.

Bredenoord AL, Hyun I (2017) Ethics of stem cell-derived gametes made in a dish: fertility for everyone? EMBO Molecular Medicine 9(4):396–398

27.

Cutas D, Smajdor A (2015) Postmenopausal motherhood reloaded: advanced age and in vitro derived gametes. Hypatia 30(2):386–402. https://doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12151

28.

Cutas D, Smajdor A (2016) I am your mother and your father! In vitro derived gametes and the ethics of solo reproduction. Health Care Anal 25(4):354–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-016-0321-7

29.

Palacios-Gonzáles C, Harris J, Testa G (2014) Multiplex parenting: IVG and the generations to come. J Med Ethics 40(11):752–758

30.

Li Z-K, Wang L-Y, Wang LB, Feng GH, Yuan XW, Liu C, Xu K, Li YH, Wan HF, Zhang Y, Li YF, Li X, Li W, Zhou Q, Hu BY (2018) Generation of bimaternal and bipaternal mice from hypoethylated haplois ESCs with imprinting region deletion. Cell Stem Cell 23(5):665–676e4

31.

Suter SM (2015) In vitro gametogenesis: just another way to have a baby? J Law Biosci 3(1):87–119

32.

Sparrow R (2014) In vitro eugenics. J Med Ethics 40(11):725–731

33.

Segers S, Mertes H, Pennings G, de Wert G, Dondorp W (2017) Using stem cell-derived gametes for same-sex reproduction: an alternative scenario. J Med Ethics 43:688–691

34.

Sparrow R (2012) Orphaned at conception: the uncanny offspring of embryos. Bioethics 26(4):173–181

35.

Watt A (2014) Ancestor embryos: embryonic gametes and genetic parenthood. J Med Ethics 40(11):759–761

36.

Limon C (2016) From surrogacy to ectogenesis: reproductive justice and equal opportunity in neoliberal times. Aust Fem Stud 31(88):203–219

37.

Deglincerti A, Croft GF, Pietila LN, Zernicka-Goetz M, Siggia ED, Brivanlou AH (2016) Self-organization of the in vitro attached human embryo. Nature 533(7602):251–254

38.

Rossant J (2016) Implantation barrier overcome. Nature 533:182–183

39.

Shahbazi MS, Jedrusik A, Vuoristo S, Recher G, Hupalowska A, Bolton V, Fogarty NNM, Campbell A, Devito L, Ilic D, Khalaf Y, Niakan KK, Fishel S, Zernicka-Goetz M (2016) Self-organization of the human embryo in the absence of maternal tissues. Nat Cell Biol 18(6):700–710

40.

Romanis EC (2018) Artificial womb technology and the frontiers of human reproduction: conceptual differences and potential implications. J Med Ethics 44:751–755

41.

Kendal E (2015) Equal opportunity and the case for state sponsored Ectogenesis. Palgrave Macmillan, London

42.

Blackshaw BP, Rodger D (2019) Ectogenesis and the case against the right to the death of the foetus. Bioethics 33:76–81

43.

Räsänen J (2017) Ectogenesis, abortion and a right to the death of the fetus. Bioethics 31:697–702

44.

Cyranoski D, Ledford H (2018) International outcry over genome-edited baby claim. Nature 563(7733):607–608

45.

Gyngell C, Douglas T, Savulescu J (2017) The ethics of germline gene editing. J Appl Philos 34(4):498–513

46.

Cavaliere G (2017) Genome editing and assisted reproduction: curing embryos, society or prospective parents. Med Health Care and Philos 2:215–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-017-9793-y

47.

Ranisch R (2019) Germline genome editing versus preimplantation genetic diagnosis: is there a case in favour of germline interventions? Bioethics, accepted 25 June 2019 (10 pages)

48.

Kudina O (2019) Accounting for the moral significance of technology: revisiting the case of non-medical sex selection. Bioeth Inq 16:75–85

49.

Savulescu J, Singer P (2019) An ethical pathway for gene editing. Bioethics 33(2):221–222

50.

Persson I, Savulescu J (2012) Unfit for the future. Oxford University Press, Oxford

51.

Rakić V (2019) Genome editing for involuntary moral enhancement. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 28:46–54

52.

Agar N (2019) Why we should defend gene editing as eugenics. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 28:9–19

53.

Cwik B (2019) Moving beyond ‘therapy’ and ‘enhancement’ in the ethics of gene editing. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 28:695–707

54.

Harris J (2007) Enhancing evolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton

55.

Brock DW (2008) Philosophical justifications of informed consent in research. In: Emanuel EJ et al (eds) The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 606–612

56.

King NMP, Churchill LP (2008) Assessing and comparing potential benefits and risks of harm. In: Emanuel EJ, Grady CG, Crouch RA, Lie RK, Miller FG, Wendler DD (eds) The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 514–526

57.

Hume D (2000) A treatise of human nature (ed. by David F. Notyon and Mary J. Norton). Oxford University Press, Oxford

58.

Samuelson W, Zeckhauser R (1988) Status quo bias in decision making. J Risk Uncertain 1:7–59

59.

Bostrom N, Ord T (2006) The reversal test: eliminating status quo bias in applied ethics. Ethics 116:656–679

60.

Habermas J (2003) The future of human nature. Cambridge Polity Press, Cambridge

61.

Nussbaum M (2004) Hiding from humanity, disgust, shame, and the law. Princeton University Press, Princeton

62.

Ferreira A (2004) I am the other: literary negotiations of human cloning. Praeger Pub Text, Santa Barbara

63.

Turney J (1998) Frankenstein's footsteps: science, genetics and popular culture. Yale University Press, New Haven

64.

Jonsen AR, Toulmin S (1998) The abuse of casuistry: a history of moral reasoning. University of California Press, Berkeley

65.

Gallagher C, Greenblatt S (2000) Practicing new historicism. The Chicago University Press, Chicago

66.

Squier SM (2004) Liminal lives: imagining the human at the frontiers of biomedicine. Duke University Press, Durham

67.

Rieder J (2008) Colonialism and the emergence of science fiction. Wesleyan University Press, Middletown

Title: Moral and Fictional Discourses on Assisted Reproductive Technologies: Current Responses, Future Scenarios
Authors:: Maurizio Balistreri
Solveig Lena Hansen
Publication date: 11-12-2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-019-00359-y
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Journal: NanoEthics Studies of New and Emerging Technologies
Issue 3/2019
Print ISSN: 1871-4757
Electronic ISSN: 1871-4765

Premium Partner

Image Credits

Springer Professional

Hint

Swipe to navigate through the articles of this issue

Publisher’s Note

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

To get access to this content you need the following product:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Other articles of this Issue 3/2019

What Counts as “Success” in Speculative and Anticipatory Ethics? Lessons from the Advent of Germline Gene Editing

Chinese Public and Nanoresearchers’ Perceptions of Benefits and Risks of Nanotechnology

From Asilomar to Genome Editing: Research Ethics and Models of Decision

Two Worlds

Editing the Gene Editing Debate: Reassessing the Normative Discussions on Emerging Genetic Technologies

Hype, Hope, and Help: Situating a Science Announcement in a Web of Stories

Premium Partner