Introduction: Kinds of Children

  • Ayo Wahlberg
  • Tine M. Gammeltoft


This introductory chapter provides a definition of selective reproduction, outlining the commonalities and differences between assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) and selective reproductive technologies (SRTs). The chapter offers an overview of the major forms of selective reproduction in the twenty-first century, describing their objectives, types and scopes. As a guideline for empirical studies of the global routinization of SRTs, the chapter identifies four routes of routinization: techniques, sites, people and regulations. Finally, the chapter tracks the economic and political forces underpinning the routinization of SRTs and discusses the critiques that new technologies for selective reproduction have been met with.


Selective reproduction Selective reproductive technologies Assisted reproductive technologies Routinization 


  1. Almeling, R. 2009. Gender and the Value of Bodily Goods: Commodification in Egg and Sperm Donation. Law and Contemporary Problems 72(3): 37–58.Google Scholar
  2. Becker, Gay. 2000. The Elusive Embryo: How Men and Women Approach New Reproductive Technologies. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bharadwaj, Aditya. 2016. Conceptions: Infertility and Procreative Technologies in India. New York: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, Lawrence. 2007. Operability, Bioavailability, and Exception. In Global Assemblages, ed. Aihwa Ong and Stephen J. Collier, 79–90. Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Collier, Stephen J., and Aihwa Ong. 2007. Global Assemblages Anthropological Problems. In Global Assemblages, ed. Aihwa Ong and Stephen J. Collier, 3–21. Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Deonandan, Raywat. 2015. Recent Trends in Reproductive Tourism and International Surrogacy: Ethical Considerations and Challenges for Policy. Risk Management and Healthcare Policy 8: 111–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dobson, R. 2003a. “Saviour Sibling” is Born After Embryo Selection in the United States. British Medical Journal 326 (7404): 1416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duster, T. 2003. Backdoor to Eugenics. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Edwards, J., S. Franklin, E. Hirsch, F. Prices, and M. Strathern. 1993. Technologies of Procreation: Kinship in the Age of Assisted Conception. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Edwards, Jeanette, Sarah Franklin, Eric Hirsch, Frances Price, and Marilyn Strathern. 1999. Technologies of Procreation: Kinship in the Age of Assisted Conception. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Erikson, S.L. 2003. Post-diagnostic Abortion in Germany: Reproduction Gone Awry, Again? Social Science & Medicine 56(9): 1987–2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Franklin, Sarah. 1997. Embodied Progress: A Cultural Account of Assisted Conception. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Franklin, Sarah, and Celia Roberts. 2006. Born and Made: An Ethnography of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fuchs, F., and P. Riis. 1956. Antenatal Sex Determination. Nature 177: 330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gammeltoft, Tine M. 2014. Haunting Images: A Cultural Account of Selective Reproduction in Vietnam. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gammeltoft, Tine M., and T.T.H. Nguyen. 2007. Fetal Conditions and Fatal Decisions: Ethical Dilemmas in Ultrasound Screening in Vietnam. Social Science and Medicine 64: 2248–2259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gammeltoft, Tine M., and Ayo Wahlberg. 2014. Selective Reproductive Technologies. Annual Review of Anthropology 43 (1): 201–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Greenhalgh, Susan, and Edwin A. Winckler. 2005. Governing China’s Population: from Leninist to Neoliberal Biopolitics. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Handwerker, Lisa. 2002. The Politics of Making Modern Babies in China: Reproductive Technologies and the “New” Eugenics. In Infertility Around the Globe: New Thinking on Childlessness, Gender, and Reproductive Technologies, ed. Marcia Claire Inhorn and Frank van Balen, 298–314. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  20. Inhorn, Marcia C. 2003. Local Babies, Global Science: Gender, Religion and In Vitro Fertilization in Egypt. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. ———. 2015. Cosmopolitan Conceptions: IVF Sojourns in Global Dubai. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Inhorn, Marcia C., and Zeynep B. Gürtin. 2011. Cross-Border Reproductive Care: A Future Research Agenda. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 23 (5): 665–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kahn, Susan Martha. 2000. Reproducing Jews: A Cultural Account of Assisted Conception in Israel. Durham: Duke University Press Books.Google Scholar
  24. Khanna, S.K. 2010. Fetal/Fatal Knowledge: New Reproductive Technologies and Family-Building Strategies in India. Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  25. Koch, Lene. 2006. Eugenic Sterilisation in Scandinavia. The European Legacy 11 (3): 299–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Koenig, Barbara A. 1988. The Technological Imperative in Medical Practice: The Social Creation of a ‘Routine’ Treatment. In Biomedicine Examined, ed. Margaret Lock and Deborah Gordon, 465–496. Culture, Illness and Healing 13. Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Kohrman, Matthew. 2005. Bodies of Difference: Experiences of Disability and Institutional Advocacy in the Making of Modern China. Berkley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Larkin, Brian. 2013. The Politics and Poetics of Infrastructure. Annual Review of Anthropology 42 (1): 327–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lippman, Abby. 1999. Embodied Knowledge and Making Sense of Prenatal Diagnosis. Journal of Genetic Counseling 8 (5): 255–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lock, M. 2007. Genomics, Laissez-Faire Eugenics, and Disability. In Disability in Local and Global Worlds, ed. B. Ingstad and S.R. Whyte, 189–211. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  31. Meskus, Mianna. 2009. Governing Risk Through Informed Choice: Prenatal Testing in Welfarist Maternity Care. In Contested Categories: Life Sciences in Society, ed. Susanne Bauer and Ayo Wahlberg. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  32. Microsort. 2013. What is MicroSort? Accessed 10 November 2013.
  33. Nuffield Council. 2006. Critical care Decisions in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine: Ethical Issues. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.Google Scholar
  34. Pollock, A. 2003. Complicating Power in High-Tech Reproduction: Narratives of Anonymous Paid Egg Donors. Journal of Medical Humanities 24(3–4): 241–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rapp, Rayna. 1999. Testing Women, Testing the Fetus: The Social Impact of Amniocentesis in America. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Rapp, Rayna. 2000. Testing Women, Testing the Fetus: The Social Impact of Amniocentesis in America. 1st ed. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Rothman, Barbara Katz. 1993. The Tentative Pregnancy: How Amniocentesis Changes the Experience of Motherhood. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  38. Saxton, Marsha. 1998. Disability Rights and Selective Abortion. In Abortion Wars: A Half Century of Struggle 1950–2000, ed. Rickie Solinger, 374–394. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  39. Schwennesen, Nete, and Lene Koch. 2009. Calculating and Visualising Life: Matters of Fact in the Context of Prenatal Risk Assessment. In Contested Categories: Life Sciences in Society, ed. Susanne Bauer and Ayo Wahlberg, 69–87. Surrey: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  40. Schwennesen, Nete, Lene Koch, and Mette Nordahl Svendsen. 2009. Practising Informed Choice: Decision-Making and Prenatal Risk Assessment—The Danish Experience. In Disclosure Dilemmas: Ethics of Genetic Prognosis After the ‘Right to Know/Not to Know’ Debate, ed. C. Rehmann-Sutter and H. Müller. Surrey: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  41. Shakespeare, Tom. 1998. Choices and Rights: Eugenics, Genetics, and Disability Equality. Disability and Society 13 (5): 665–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Strathern, Marilyn. 1992. Reproducing the Future: Anthropology, Kinship, and the New Reproductive Technologies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. ———. 1998. Surrogates and Substitutes. In The Politics of Postmodernity, ed. James Good and Irving Velody. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Svendsen, Mette Nordahl. 2014. Selective Reproduction: Social and Temporal Imaginaries for Negotiating the Value of Life in Human and Animal Neonates. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 29 (2): 178–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Taussig, Karen Sue, Rayna Rapp, and Deborah Heath. 2003. Flexible Eugenics: Technologies of Self in the Age of Genetics. In Genetic Nature/Culture: Anthropology and Science Beyond the Two-Culture Divide, ed. A.H. Goodman, D. Heath, and M.S. Lindee, 58–76. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  46. Thompson, Charis. 2007. Making Parents: The Ontological Choreography of Reproductive Technologies. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  47. Wahlberg, Ayo. 2009. Serious Disease as Kinds of Living. In Contested Categories: Life Sciences in Society, ed. Susanne Bauer and Ayo Wahlberg, 89–112. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  48. ———. 2016. The Birth and Routinization of IVF in China. Reproductive Biomedicine and Society Online 2: 97–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zhu, Jianfeng. 2013. Projecting Potentiality. Understanding Maternal Serum Screening in Contemporary China. Current Anthropology 54 (S7): S36–S44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sources for Table 1.1

  1. Almeling, R. 2011. Sex Cells: The Medical Market for Eggs and Sperm. Berkley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baruch, S., D. Kaufman, and K.L. Hudson. 2008. Genetic Testing of Embryos: Practices and Perspectives of US In Vitro Fertilization Clinics. Fertility and Sterility 89 (5): 1053–1058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Calhaz-Jorge, C., C. de Geyter, M.S. Kupka, J. de Mouzon, K. Erb, E. Mocanu, T. Motrenko, et al. 2016. Assisted Reproductive Technology in Europe, 2012: Results Generated from European Registers by ESHRE. Human Reproduction 31 (8): 1638–1652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chandrasekharan, S., M.A. Minear, A. Hung, and M.A. Allyse. 2014. Noninvasive Prenatal Testing Goes Global. Science Translational Medicine 6 (231): 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. de Graaf, G., F. Buckley, and B.G. Skotko. 2015. Estimates of the Live Births, Natural Losses, and Elective Terminations with Down Syndrome in the United States. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A 167 (4): 756–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Rycke, M., F. Belva, V. Goossens, C. Moutou, S.B. SenGupta, J. Traeger-Synodinos, and E. Coonen. 2015. ESHRE PGD Consortium Data Collection XIII: Cycles from January to December 2010 with Pregnancy Follow-Up to October 2011. Human Reproduction 30 (8): 1763–1789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Department of Health and National Statistics. 2008. Abortion Statistics, England and Wales: 2007. Statistical Bulletin 2008(1): 1–34.Google Scholar
  8. Dobson, R. 2003b. “Saviour sibling” is Born After Embryo Selection in the United States. British Medical Journal 326 (7404): 1416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ekelund, C.K., O.B. Petersen, L. Skibsted, S. Kjærgaard, I. Vogel, and A. Tabor. 2011. First-Trimester Screening for Trisomy 21 in Denmark: Implications for Detection and Birth Rates of Trisomy 18 and Trisomy 13. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 38 (2): 140–144.Google Scholar
  10. Ginsburg, E.S., V.L. Baker, C. Racowsky, E. Wantman, J. Goldfarb, and J.E. Stern. 2011. Use of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis and Preimplantation Genetic Screening in the United States: A Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Writing Group Paper. Fertility and Sterility 96 (4): 865–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority. 2014. Egg and Sperm Donation in the UK: 2012–2013. London: HFEA.Google Scholar
  12. Kahraman, S., C. Beyazyurek, M.A. Yesilipek, G. Ozturk, M. Ertem, S. Anak, S. Kansoy, et al. 2014. Successful Haematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in 44 Children from Healthy Siblings Conceived After Preimplantation HLA Matching. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 29 (3): 340–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Karabinus, David S., Donald P. Marazzo, Harvey J. Stern, Daniel A. Potter, Chrispo I. Opanga, Marisa L. Cole, Lawrence A. Johnson, and Joseph D. Schulman. 2014. The Effectiveness of Flow Cytometric Sorting of Human Sperm (MicroSort®) for Influencing a Child’s Sex. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology 12 (1): 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Martin, L.J. 2014. Reproductive Tourism in the United States. Hoboken: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  15. Sedgh, G., J. Bearak, S. Singh, A. Bankole, A. Popinchalk, B. Ganatra, C. Rossier, et al. 2016. Abortion Incidence Between 1990 and 2014: Global, Regional, and Subregional Levels and Trends. The Lancet 388 (10041): 258–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sedgh, G., S. Singh, and R. Hussain. 2014. Intended and Unintended Pregnancies Worldwide in 2012 and Recent Trends. Studies in Family Planning 45 (3): 301–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Skotko, B.G. 2009. With New Prenatal Testing, Will Babies with Down Syndrome Slowly Disappear? Archives of Disease in Childhood 94 (11): 823–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sun, H.Y., M.J. Gu, Y.Y. Sun, S.Q. Wang, Z.L. Liu, Z.X. Zhang, F.X. Lin, et al. 2013. Analysis of the Pregnancy Outcomes of 13 723 Tubes of Sperm Specimens from the Sperm Bank. Zhonghua nan ke xue= National Journal of Andrology 19 (9): 798–801.Google Scholar
  19. UNFPA. 2012. Sex Imbalances at Birth: Current Trends, Consequences and Policy Implications. New York: UNFPA.Google Scholar
  20. Vassy, Carine. 2006. From a Genetic Innovation to Mass Health Programmes: The Diffusion of Down’s Syndrome Prenatal Screening and Diagnostic Techniques in France. Social Science and Medicine 63 (8): 2041–2051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Vassy, C., S. Rosman, and B. Rousseau. 2014. From Policy Making to Service Use. Down’s Syndrome Antenatal Screening in England, France and the Netherlands. Social Science and Medicine 106: 67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Vertommen, S. 2016. From the Pergonal Project to Kadimastem: A Genealogy of Israel’s Reproductive-Industrial Complex. BioSocieties. doi: 10.1057/biosoc.2015.44

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ayo Wahlberg
    • 1
  • Tine M. Gammeltoft
    • 1
  1. 1.University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations