Skip to main content

Frankenstein and the Question of Children’s Rights After Human Germline Genetic Modification

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.

Keywords

  • Frankenstein
  • Children’s rights
  • Genetic engineering
  • Three-person IVF
  • CRISPR-Cas9

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-89429-4_2
  • Chapter length: 16 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-319-89429-4
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

References

  • Barritt JA, et al. Mitochondria in human offspring derived from ooplasmic transplantation: brief communication. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(3):513–6.

    CrossRef  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baylis F. The ethics of creating children with three genetic parents. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;26:531–4.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baylis F, Robert JS. Part-human chimeras; worrying the facts, probing the ethics. Am J Bioeth. 2007;7(5):41–58.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Botting EH. Mary Shelley and the rights of the child: political philosophy in Frankenstein. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowlby J. Attachment. 2nd ed. New York: Basic Books; [1969] 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brem SK, Anijar KZ. The bioethics of fiction: the chimera in film and print. Am J Bioeth. 2003;3(3):22–4.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Callaway E. U.K. scientists gain license to edit genes in human embryos. Nature. 2016;530:7588.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castle S. Britain set to approve technique to create babies from 3 people. The New York Times, 3 Feb; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan S. Editorial: more than cautionary tales: the role of fiction in bioethics. J Med Ethics. 2009;35(7):398–9.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J, et al. Birth of infant after transfer of anucleate donor oocyte cytoplasm into recipient eggs. Lancet. 1997;350(9072):186–7.

    CrossRef  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Darnovsky M. Humans have a right to be born without genetic manipulation. In: Merino N, editor. Human genetics. Farmington Hills: Greenhaven Press; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies H. Can Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein be read as an early research ethics text? Med Humanit. 2004;30(1):32–5.

    CrossRef  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dominy NJ, Yeakel JD. Frankenstein and the horrors of competitive exclusion. BioScience. 2017;67(2):107–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greely HT. The end of sex and the future of reproduction. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross AJ. Comment—Dr. Frankenstein, or: how I learned to stop worrying and love CRISPR-Cas9. Jurimetrics J. 2016;56:413–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J. The future of human nature. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraway D. Staying with the trouble: making kin in the Chthulucene. Durham: Duke University Press; 2016.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison G, Gannon WL. Victor Frankenstein’s institutional review board proposal, 1790. Sci Eng Ethics. 2015;21(5):1139–57.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkey S. Toronto fertility clinic offers controversial egg treatment for women that can extend child-bearing years. National Post, 30 Jan; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoepfler P. GMO sapiens: the life-changing science of designer babies. London: World Scientific; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liao SM. The right to be loved. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ma H, et al. Correction of a pathogenic gene mutation in human embryos. Nature. 2017;548:413–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason MA, Ekman T. Babies of technology: assisted reproduction and the rights of the child. New Haven: Yale University Press; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehlman M. Transhumanist dreams and dystopian nightmares: the promise and peril of genetic engineering. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mellor AK. Mary Shelley: her life, her fiction, her monsters. New York: Routledge; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miah A. Genetically modified athletes: biomedical ethics, gene doping, and sport. London: Routledge; 2004.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Mitalipov S, Wolf DP. Clinical and ethical implications of mitochondrial gene transfer. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2014;25(1):5–7.

    CrossRef  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palacios-González C. Mitochondrial replacement techniques: egg donation, genealogy, and eugenics. Monash Bioeth Rev. 2016;34:37–51.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips A. The politics of the human. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2015.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Pritchard C. The girl with three biological parents. BBC Radio 4 Magazine, 1 Sept; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sample I. World’s first baby born from new procedure using DNA of three people. The Guardian, 27 Sept; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandel M. The case against perfection: ethics in the age of genetic engineering. Cambridge: Belknap Press; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shelley M. In: Hunter PJ, editor. Frankenstein. 2nd ed. New York: Norton; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swirski P. Of literature and knowledge: explorations in narrative thought experiments, evolution, and game theory. London: Routledge; 2007.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu J, et al. Interspecies chimerism with mammalian pluripotent stem cells. Cell. 2017;168:473–86.

    CrossRef  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang J, et al. Pregnancy derived from human nuclear transfer. Fertil Steril. 2003;80(3):56.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang J, et al. Live birth derived from oocyte spindle transfer to prevent mitochondrial disease. Reprod Biomed Online. 2017;34(4):361–8.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eileen Hunt Botting .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this paper

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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)