Abstract
Prominent critics and skeptics of genetic engineering have treated the ethical issue of human germline genetic modification (HGGM) as if it were still science fiction, like the artificially made Creature imagined in Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel Frankenstein. After surveying the history of making genetically modified (GM) children through three-person IVF since the late 1990s, I sketch a framework for a normative political theory of the rights of the GM children made from heritable biotechnological interventions in the human genome. In light of the history and trajectory of HGGM, the preeminent hard question is no longer “Should science genetically engineer children?” An equally difficult question is “What are the rights of the GM child?” The source of all speculative fiction, Frankenstein presciently addresses the latter question by having the Creature articulate a child’s fundamental and universal rights to both parental love and nondiscrimination, regardless of reproductive circumstances or genetic features.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Barritt JA, et al. Mitochondria in human offspring derived from ooplasmic transplantation: brief communication. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(3):513–6.
Baylis F. The ethics of creating children with three genetic parents. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;26:531–4.
Baylis F, Robert JS. Part-human chimeras; worrying the facts, probing the ethics. Am J Bioeth. 2007;7(5):41–58.
Botting EH. Mary Shelley and the rights of the child: political philosophy in Frankenstein. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press; 2017.
Bowlby J. Attachment. 2nd ed. New York: Basic Books; [1969] 1982.
Brem SK, Anijar KZ. The bioethics of fiction: the chimera in film and print. Am J Bioeth. 2003;3(3):22–4.
Callaway E. U.K. scientists gain license to edit genes in human embryos. Nature. 2016;530:7588.
Castle S. Britain set to approve technique to create babies from 3 people. The New York Times, 3 Feb; 2015.
Chan S. Editorial: more than cautionary tales: the role of fiction in bioethics. J Med Ethics. 2009;35(7):398–9.
Cohen J, et al. Birth of infant after transfer of anucleate donor oocyte cytoplasm into recipient eggs. Lancet. 1997;350(9072):186–7.
Darnovsky M. Humans have a right to be born without genetic manipulation. In: Merino N, editor. Human genetics. Farmington Hills: Greenhaven Press; 2010.
Davies H. Can Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein be read as an early research ethics text? Med Humanit. 2004;30(1):32–5.
Dominy NJ, Yeakel JD. Frankenstein and the horrors of competitive exclusion. BioScience. 2017;67(2):107–10.
EEOC (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. 2008. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/gina.cfm. Accessed 18 Apr 2017.
Fukuyama F. Our posthuman future: consequences of the biotechnology revolution. New York: Picador; 2002.
Greely HT. The end of sex and the future of reproduction. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2016.
Gross AJ. Comment—Dr. Frankenstein, or: how I learned to stop worrying and love CRISPR-Cas9. Jurimetrics J. 2016;56:413–47.
Habermas J. The future of human nature. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2003.
Haraway D. Staying with the trouble: making kin in the Chthulucene. Durham: Duke University Press; 2016.
Harrison G, Gannon WL. Victor Frankenstein’s institutional review board proposal, 1790. Sci Eng Ethics. 2015;21(5):1139–57.
Jonsen AR. Frankenstein and the birth of medical ethics. In: Colt H, Quadrelli S, Lester F, editors. The picture of health: medical ethics and the movies. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011.
Kirkey S. Toronto fertility clinic offers controversial egg treatment for women that can extend child-bearing years. National Post, 30 Jan; 2015.
Knoepfler P. GMO sapiens: the life-changing science of designer babies. London: World Scientific; 2016.
Liao SM. The right to be loved. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
Ma H, et al. Correction of a pathogenic gene mutation in human embryos. Nature. 2017;548:413–9.
Mason MA, Ekman T. Babies of technology: assisted reproduction and the rights of the child. New Haven: Yale University Press; 2017.
Mehlman M. Transhumanist dreams and dystopian nightmares: the promise and peril of genetic engineering. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins; 2010.
Mellor AK. Mary Shelley: her life, her fiction, her monsters. New York: Routledge; 1988.
Miah A. Genetically modified athletes: biomedical ethics, gene doping, and sport. London: Routledge; 2004.
Mitalipov S, Wolf DP. Clinical and ethical implications of mitochondrial gene transfer. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2014;25(1):5–7.
Moss L. “A science of uncertainty”: bioethics, narrative competence, and turning to the “what if” of fiction. Stud Can Lit/Études en littérature canadienne. 2015;40:2. https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/SCL/article/view/24546. Accessed 19 Apr 2017.
Palacios-González C. Mitochondrial replacement techniques: egg donation, genealogy, and eugenics. Monash Bioeth Rev. 2016;34:37–51.
PCB (President’s Council on Bioethics). Session 2: science and the pursuit of perfection. Discussion of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s ‘The Birth-Mark.’ 2002. https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcbe/transcripts/jan02/jan17session2.html. Accessed 26 Apr 2017.
Pham N. Choice vs. chance: the constitutional case for regulating human germline genetic modification. Hastings Const Law Q. 2006;34(1):133–59.
Phillips A. The politics of the human. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2015.
Pritchard C. The girl with three biological parents. BBC Radio 4 Magazine, 1 Sept; 2014.
Regalado A. Engineering the perfect baby. MIT Technology Review, 5 Mar; 2015. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/535661/engineering-the-perfect-baby/. Accessed 18 Apr 2017.
Roberts M. IVF: first three-parent baby born to infertile couple. BBC News Health, 18 Jan; 2017.
Sample I. World’s first baby born from new procedure using DNA of three people. The Guardian, 27 Sept; 2016.
Sandel M. The case against perfection: ethics in the age of genetic engineering. Cambridge: Belknap Press; 2007.
Shelley M. In: Hunter PJ, editor. Frankenstein. 2nd ed. New York: Norton; 2012.
Smolensky KR. Parental tort liability for direct preimplantation genetic interventions: technological harms, the social model of disability, and questions of identity. Hastings Law J. 2008;60, Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 08–27.
Swirski P. Of literature and knowledge: explorations in narrative thought experiments, evolution, and game theory. London: Routledge; 2007.
United Nations. Convention on the Rights of the Child. 1989. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx. Accessed 19 Apr 2017.
Weintraub K. Three biological parents and a baby. The New York Times, 16 Dec; 2013.
Wu J, et al. Interspecies chimerism with mammalian pluripotent stem cells. Cell. 2017;168:473–86.
Zhang J, et al. Pregnancy derived from human nuclear transfer. Fertil Steril. 2003;80(3):56.
Zhang J, et al. Live birth derived from oocyte spindle transfer to prevent mitochondrial disease. Reprod Biomed Online. 2017;34(4):361–8.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this paper
Cite this paper
Botting, E.H. (2018). Frankenstein and the Question of Children’s Rights After Human Germline Genetic Modification. In: Campo-Engelstein, L., Burcher, P. (eds) Reproductive Ethics II. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89429-4_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89429-4_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-89428-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-89429-4
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)