Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Valuing Reprogenetic Technologies: Bringing Insights from the Philosophy of Technology to Bioethics

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Spanish Philosophy of Technology

Part of the book series: Philosophy of Engineering and Technology ((POET,volume 24))

Abstract

Reprogenetic technologies have been enthusiastically embraced by well-known authors who argue that these technologies increase reproductive choice, contribute to a reduction of suffering by eliminating genetic diseases and disabilities, and offer the opportunity to improve the human condition by creating beings who will live much longer and healthier lives, have better intellectual capacities, and enjoy more refined emotional experiences. Indeed, some take reprogenetic technologies to be so valuable to human beings that they believe their use is not only morally permissible but morally required. More often than not, however, proponents of reprogenetic technologies treats these technologies as mere value-neutral tools, limiting their assessments to risk and benefit considerations. In this chapter I bring insights from philosophy of technology regarding the value-laden nature of technologies to bear on bioethical analyses of reprogenetics. I challenge proponents’ assumption that an evaluation of risk and benefits is all is needed to determine the moral permissibility or impermissibility of developing and using reprogenetic technologies. I argue that a robust ethical analysis requires attention to the relationship between contextual values and technological development and implementation, as well as to the ways in which technologies reinforce or transform human values by mediating our perceptions of the world and our reasons for action. Ignoring the value-laden nature of reprogenetic technologies results not just in incomplete ethical evaluations but in distorted ones.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    These authors’ publication record on reprogenetics is extensive; I include here only some of their representative works.

  2. 2.

    These technologies can also be used for research purposes. My concern here, however, is limited to their use for reproductive purposes.

  3. 3.

    Mitochondria are inherited maternally.

  4. 4.

    Advocates of reprogenetics problematically reduce uncertainties, ambiguities, and ignorance regarding many of the effects of new reprogenetic technologies to issues of risk. I put this concern aside here.

References

  • Asch, A. (1999). Prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion: A challenge to practice and policy. American Journal of Public Health, 89(11), 1649–1657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asch, A. (2003). Disability equality and prenatal testing: Contradictory or compatible?, Florida State University law review. Florida State University. College of Law, 30(2), 315–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baltimore, D., Berg, P., Botchan, M., Carroll, D., Charo, R. A., Church, G., Corn, J. E., Daley, G. Q., Doudna, J. A., Fenner, M., Greely, H. T., Jinek, M., Martin, G. S., Penhoet, E., Puck, J., Sternberg, S. H., Weissman, J. S., & Yamamoto, K. R. (2015). Biotechnology. A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification. Science, 348(6230), 36–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgmann, A. (1984). Technology and the character of contemporary life: A philosophical inquiry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bostrom, N. (2003). Human genetic enhancements: A transhumanist perspective. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 37(4), 493–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brezina, P. R., & Kutteh, W. H. (2015). Clinical applications of preimplantation genetic testing. Bmj-British Medical Journal, 350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, A. (2008). Enhancement and the ethics of development. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 18(1), 1–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cai, M., & Yang, Y. (2014). Targeted genome editing tools for disease modeling and gene therapy. Current Gene Therapy, 14(1), 2–9. https://doi.org/10.2174/156652321402140318165450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callaway, E. (2016). UK scientists gain licence to edit genes in human embryos. Nature, 530(7588), 18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cao, B., Stout, M. J., Lee, I., & Mysorekar, I. U. (2014). Placental microbiome and its role in preterm birth. NeoReviews, 15(12), e537–e545. https://doi.org/10.1542/neo.15-12-e537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, and Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. (2014). 2012 assisted reproductive technology national summary report. Atlanta: US Dept of Health and Human Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, A. (2010). Biomedicalization: Technoscience, health, and illness in the U.S. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, S. C. (2013). Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: Technical advances and expanding applications. Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 25(3), 201–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Couzin-Frankel, J. (2012). Genetics. New company pushes the envelope on pre-conception testing. Science, 338(6105), 315–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craven, L., Tuppen, H. A., Greggains, G. D., Harbottle, S. J., Murphy, J. L., Cree, L. M., Murdoch, A. P., Chinnery, P. F., Taylor, R. W., Lightowlers, R. N., Herbert, M., & Turnbull, D. M. (2010). Pronuclear transfer in human embryos to prevent transmission of mitochondrial DNA disease. Nature, 465(7294), 82–U89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, N. (2008). Just health: Meeting health needs fairly. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Melo-Martín, I. (2017). Rethinking reprogenetics: Enhancing ethical analyses of reprogenetic technologies. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeFrancesco, L. (2014). 23andMe’s designer baby patent. Nature Biotechnology, 32(1), 8–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeGrazia, D. (2012). Creation ethics: Reproduction, genetics, and quality of life. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Elder, K., & Dale, B. (2011). In-vitro fertilization (3rd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feenberg, A. (1999). Questioning technology. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (2008). The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–79. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, R. M. (2007). Babies by design: The ethics of genetic choice. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grzeskowiak, L. E., Hodyl, N. A., Stark, M. J., Morrison, J. L., & Clifton, V. L. (2015). Association of early and late maternal smoking during pregnancy with offspring body mass index at 4 to 5 years of age. Journal of Developmental Origins of Health and Disease, 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1971). Technology and science as “ideology”. In Toward a rational society (pp. 81–122). Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handyside, A. H., Kontogianni, E. H., Hardy, K., & Winston, R. M. (1990). Pregnancies from biopsied human preimplantation embryos sexed by Y-specific DNA amplification. Nature, 344(6268), 768–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harper, J. C., & Sengupta, S. B. (2012). Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: State of the art 2011. Human Genetics, 131(2), 175–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, J. (2001). One principle and three fallacies of disability studies. Journal of Medical Ethics, 27(6), 383–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, J. (2005). No sex selection please, we’re British. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31(5), 286–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, J. (2007). Enhancing evolution: The ethical case for making better people. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, J. (2016). Germline modification and the burden of human existence. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 25(1), 6–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herissone-Kelly, P. (2007a). Parental love and the ethics of sex selection. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 16(3), 326–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herissone-Kelly, P. (2007b). The “parental love” objection to nonmedical sex selection: Deepening the argument. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 16(4), 446–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to earth. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kass, L. (2002). Life, liberty, and the defense of dignity: The challenge for bioethics (1st ed.). San Francisco: Encounter Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knowles, L. P., & Kaebnick, G. E. (2007). Reprogenetics: Law, policy, and ethical issues. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kukla, R. (2005). Mass hysteria: Medicine, culture, and mothers’ bodies, Explorations in bioethics and the medical humanities. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kupka, M. S., Ferraretti, A. P., de Mouzon, J., Erb, K., D’Hooghe, T., Castilla, J. A., Calhaz-Jorge, C., de Geyter, C., Goossens, V., & European IVF Monitoring Consortium for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embriology. (2014). Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2010: Results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Human Reproduction, 29(10), 2099–2113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liang, P., Xu, Y., Zhang, X., Ding, C., Huang, R., Zhang, Z., Lv, J., Xie, X., Chen, Y., Li, Y., Sun, Y., Bai, Y., Songyang, Z., Ma, W., Zhou, C., & Huang, J. (2015). CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes. Protein & Cell, 6(5), 363–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marmot, M., Allen, J., Bell, R., Bloomer, E., Goldblatt, P., & Consortium for the European Review of Social Determinants of Health and the Health Divide. (2012). WHO European review of social determinants of health and the health divide. Lancet, 380(9846), 1011–1029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDougall, R. (2005). Acting parentally: An argument against sex selection. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31(10), 601–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niu, J., Zhang, B., & Chen, H. (2014). Applications of TALENs and CRISPR/Cas9 in human cells and their potentials for gene therapy. Molecular Biotechnology, 56(8), 681–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parens, E. (2015). Shaping our selves: On technology, flourishing, and a habit of thinking. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parens, E., & Asch, A. (1999). The disability rights critique of prenatal genetic testing. Reflections and Recommendations, The Hastings Center report, 29(5).

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, S. S., Daniels, C. R., Gillman, M. W., Golden, J., Kukla, R., Kuzawa, C., & Rich-Edwards, J. (2014). Society: Don’t blame the mothers. Nature, 512(7513), 131–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, D. E. (1997). Killing the black body: Race, reproduction, and the meaning of liberty (1st ed.). New York: Pantheon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, J. A. (2002). Sex selection for gender variety by preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Fertility and Sterility, 78(3), 463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, J. A. (2003). Procreative liberty in the era of genomics. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 29(4), 439–487.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, J. A. (2005). Ethics and the future of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 10(Suppl 1), 97–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, N. S. (2006). Politics of life itself: Biomedicine, power, and subjectivity in the twenty-first century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savulescu, J. (2001). Procreative beneficence: Why we should select the best children. Bioethics, 15(5–6), 413–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savulescu, J. (2005). New breeds of humans: The moral obligation to enhance. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 10, 36–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savulescu, J. (2006). Justice, fairness, and enhancement. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1093, 321–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savulescu, J., & Dahl, E. (2000). Sex selection and preimplantation diagnosis: A response to the Ethics Committee of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine. Human Reproduction, 15(9), 1879–1880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savulescu, J., & Kahane, G. (2009). The moral obligation to create children with the best chance of the best life. Bioethics, 23(5), 274–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savulescu, J., & Persson, I. (2012). Moral enhancement, freedom and the god machine. The Monist, 95(3), 399–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savulescu, J., Pugh, J., Douglas, T., & Gyngell, C. (2015). The moral imperative to continue gene editing research on human embryos. Protein & Cell, 6(7), 476–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scully, J. L. (2008). Disability bioethics: Moral bodies, moral difference. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scully, J. L., Banks, S., & Shakespeare, T. W. (2006a). Chance, choice and control: Lay debate on prenatal social sex selection. Social Science & Medicine, 63(1), 21–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scully, J. L., Shakespeare, T. W., & Banks, S. (2006b). Gift not commodity? Lay people deliberating social sex selection. Sociology of Health & Illness, 28(6), 749–767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, R. R., McGowan, M. L., Verma, J. A., Landy, D. C., McAdoo, S., Carson, S. A., Simpson, J. L., & McCullough, L. B. (2010). Moral attitudes and beliefs among couples pursuing PGD for sex selection. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 21(7), 838–847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Swierstra, T., & Waelbers, K. (2012). Designing a good life: A matrix for the technological mediation of morality. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(1), 157–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tachibana, M., Amato, P., Sparman, M., Woodward, J., Melguizo Sanchis, D., Ma, H., Marti Gutierrez, N., Tippner-Hedges, R., Kang, E., Lee, H.-S., Ramsey, C., Masterson, K., Battaglia, D., Lee, D., Wu, D., Jensen, J., Patton, P., Gokhale, S., Stouffer, R., & Mitalipov, S. (2013). Towards germline gene therapy of inherited mitochondrial diseases. Nature, 493(7434), 627–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torjesen, I. (2014). Government gives the go ahead for mitochondrial donation during IVF. Bmj-British Medical Journal, 349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tryggvadottir, E. A., Medek, H., Birgisdottir, B. E., Geirsson, R. T., & Gunnarsdottir, I. (2016). Association between healthy maternal dietary pattern and risk for gestational diabetes mellitus. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 70(2), 237–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van de Poel, I. (2001). Investigating ethical issues in engineering design. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7(3), 429–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeek, P.-P. (2005). What things do: Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waelbers, K. (2011). Doing good with technologies: Taking responsibility for the social role of emerging technologies. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Winner, L. (1986). The whale and the reactor: A search for limits in an age of high technology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121–136.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Medical Ethics, Weill Cornell Medicine, Cornell University, New York, NY, USA

    Inmaculada de Melo-Martín

Authors
  1. Inmaculada de Melo-Martín
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Inmaculada de Melo-Martín .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Political Studies, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

    Belén Laspra

  2. Department of Philosophy, University of Oviedo, Oviedo, Asturias, Spain

    José Antonio López Cerezo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

de Melo-Martín, I. (2018). Valuing Reprogenetic Technologies: Bringing Insights from the Philosophy of Technology to Bioethics. In: Laspra, B., López Cerezo, J. (eds) Spanish Philosophy of Technology. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, vol 24. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71958-0_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation