Abstract
A recent article on the front page of The Independent (September 18, 2015) reported that the genetic ‘manipulation’ of IVF embryos is to start in Britain, using a new revolutionary gene-editing technique, called Crispr/Cas9. About three weeks later (Saturday 10, October 2015), on the front page of the same newspaper, it was reported that the National Health Service (NHS) faces a one billion pound deficit only 3 months into the new year. The hidden connection between these reports is that gene editing could be used to solve issues related to health care allocation. Improving the health of future generations might coincide with public health goals; it might improve the health of individuals and communities, and, if successful, might be seen as a public good. However, enhancing future generations will require In Vitro Fertilisation and Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis. Remarkably, the necessary involvement of women in an enhancing scenario has not been discussed by its proponents. The present discourse on moral obligations of future generations, although not referring to women, seems to imply that women might be required, morally, if not legally, to reproduce with IVF. Enhancing future generations will be gendered, unless the artificial womb is developed. These are challenging issues that require a wider perspective, of both women and men. Despite the lack of a unified feminist conclusion in the discussions about the merits and risks of human genome modification, there is an urgent need to clarify the role of women in this scenario.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This refers to the case of a grandfather, head of a family in Israel, who urges his family to get rid of the 'family curse' of women dying of breast cancer in their forties—through IVF and PGD.
Allegedly, the reason for underreporting is that complications are regarded as part of a 'normal' pregnancy; i.e. not necessarily as a result of IVF.
For example, the advent of the artificial womb might also influence the legislature regarding abortion laws; however, this is a topic for another paper.
For a brilliant account of the evolution of the human race during the last millennia, see Mortimer (2014).
References
Baltimore, D., Berg, M., Botcha, M., et al. (2015). A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification. Science, 348, 36–38.
Ber, R. (2009). Ethical issues in gestational surrogacy. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 21, 153–169.
Bostrom, N., & Sandberg, A. (2013) [2009]. The wisdom of nature: An evolutionary heuristic for human enhancement. In J. Savulescu, N. Bostrom (Eds.), Human enhancement (pp. 375–416). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Firestone, S. (2003) [1970]. The dialectic of sex. NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Harris, J. (2005). Scientific research is a moral duty. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31, 242–248.
Harris, J. (2007). Enhancing evolution: The ethical case for making better people. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Harris, J. (2013) [2009]. Enhancements are a moral obligation. In J. Savulescu, N. Bostrom (Eds.), Human enhancement (pp. 131–154). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hayry, M. (2010). Rationality and the genetic challenge: Making people better?. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MacKenzie, C., & Stoljar, N. (2000). Introduction: Autonomy refigured. In C. MacKenzie & N. Stoljar (Eds.), Relational autonomy: Feminist perspectives on autonomy, agency, and the social self. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mortimer I. (2014). Human Race. 10 Centuries of Change on Earth. London: Vintage.
Overall, C. (2012). Why have children? The ethical debate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pilcher, J., & Whelehan, I. (2005) 50 Key concepts in gender studies, 3rd edn. London: Sage.
Ran, F. A., Hsu, P. D., Wright, J., et al. (2013). Genome engineering using the CRISPR-Cas9 system. Nature Protocols, 8, 2281–2308.
Sander-Staudt, M. (2006). Of machine born? A feminist assessment of ectogenesis and artificial wombs. In Scott Gelfand & John R. Shook (Eds.), Ectogenesis: Artificial womb technology and the future of human reproduction (pp. 109–128). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Savulescu, J. (2006). Genetic interventions and the ethics of enhancement of human beings. In Bonnie Steinbock (Ed.), The Oxford handbook on bioethics (pp. 516–535). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Savulescu, J., & Bostrom, N. (2013 [2009]). Human enhancement ethics: The state of the debate. In J Savulescu, N. Bostrom (Eds.), Human enhancement (pp. 1–24). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Savulescu, J., & Kahane, G. (2009). The moral obligation to create children with the best chance of the best life. Bioethics, 23, 274–290.
Savulescu, J., Pugh, J., Douglas, T., et al. (2015). The moral imperative to continue gene editing research on human embryos. Protein and Cell, 6, 476–479.
Senior, M. (2015). UK funding agencies weigh in on human germline editing. Nature Biotechnology, 33, 1118–1119.
Sherwin, S. (1998). A relational approach to autonomy in health care. In Susan Sherwin (Ed.), The politics of women’s health: Exploring agency and autonomy in health care (pp. 1–28). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Simonstein, F. (2006). Artificial reproduction technologies and women as human subjects for research. Medicine and Law, 26, 8–12.
Simonstein, F. (2008). Stem cell research—Can the disagreement be resolved? A perspective from Israel. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34, 732–734.
Simonstein, F., & Mashiach-Eizenberg, M. (2009). The artificial womb: A pilot study considering people’s views on the artificial womb and ectogenesis in Israel. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare, 18, 87–94.
Simonstein, F., Mashiach-Eizenberg, M., Revel, A., & Yunes, Y. (2014). Assisted reproduction policies in Israel: A retrospective analysis of IVF-ET. Fertility and Sterility, 102, 1301–1306.
Solinger, R. (2005). Pregnancy and power. NY: New York University Press.
Steinberg, D. (1997). Bodies in glass: Genetics eugenics and embryo ethics. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Takala, T. (2009). Human before sex? ectogenesis as a way to equality. In F. Simonstein (Ed.), Reprogen-ethics and the Future of Gender (pp. 187–196). London: Springer.
Tong, R. (2006). Out of body gestation: In whose best interests? In Scott Gelfand & John R. Shook (Eds.), Ectogenesis: Artificial womb technology and the future of human reproduction (pp. 59–76). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Walker, A. (2009). Commentary: The emergence and application of active aging in Europe. Journal of Aging and Social Policy, 21, 75–93.
Wang, S., Yi, F., & Qu, J. (2015). Eliminate mitochondrial diseases by gene editing in germ-line cells and embryos. Protein and Cell, 6, 472–475.
WHO (2015). Integrated surveillance of noncommunicable diseases A European Union-WHO project. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/314507/iNCD-Report-2015.pdf. Accessed 25 Jan 2017.
Zimmer, Z., & McDaniel, S. A. (2013). Global ageing in the twenty-first century. In Z. Zimmer & S. McDaniel (Eds.), Ageing in the twenty-first century: Challenges, opportunities and implications (pp. 1–12). New York: Ashgate.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
None.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Simonstein, F. Gene Editing, Enhancing and Women’s Role. Sci Eng Ethics 25, 1007–1016 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9875-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9875-5