Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T14:16:19.813Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In Vitro Gametogenesis and the Creation of ‘Designer Babies’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 July 2019

SEPPE SEGERS ,
GUIDO PENNINGS ,
WYBO DONDORP ,
GUIDO DE WERT  and
HEIDI MERTES
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Research into the development of stem cell-derived (SCD) gametes in humans, otherwise known as in vitro gametogenesis (IVG), is largely motivated by reproductive aims. Especially, the goal of establishing genetic parenthood by means of SCD-gametes is considered an important aim. However, like other applications in the field of assisted reproduction, this technology evokes worries about the possibility of creating so-called ‘designer babies.’ In this paper, we investigate various ways in which SCD-gametes could be used to create such preference-matched offspring, and what this would mean for the acceptability of IVG, if it is premised that it is morally problematic to ‘design’ offspring. We argue that IVG might facilitate the creation of preference-matched offspring, but conclude that this should not undermine the moral acceptability of IVG altogether—even if one concedes the premise that creating ‘designer babies’ is morally problematic. In the light of this, we also point at a possible inconsistency for a position that condemns the creation of ‘designer offspring,’ while accepting the various endeavors to have genetically related offspring.

Keywords

in vitro gametogenesisgamete derivationartificial gametesgenetic parenthoodassisted reproductionstem cellsgene editingdesigner babies
Type
Articles
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 28 , Issue 3 , July 2019 , pp. 499 - 508
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Acknowledgement: This study was funded by the Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology in Flanders (IWT), (project number: 150042).

References

Notes

1. Franklin, S, Roberts, C. Born and Made. An Ethnography of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2006.Google Scholar

2. Sterckx, S, Cockbain, J, Howard, HC, Borry, P. “I prefer a child with …”: Designer babies, another controversial patent in the arena of direct-to-consumer genomics. Genetics in Medicine 2013;15(12):923–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

3. de Melo-Martín, I. Rethinking Reprogenetics. New York: Oxford University Press; 2017, at 48.Google Scholar

4. Tooley, M. The moral status of the cloning of humans. In: Humber, JM, Almeder, RF, editors. Human Cloning. Totowa: Humana Press; 1998:65–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. Pennings, G, de Wert, G. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. In: Chadwick, R, editor. Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics. San Diego: Academic Press; 2012:576–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. Lanphier, E, Urnov, F, Haecker, SE, Werner, M, Smolenski, J. Don’t edit the human germ line. Nature 2015;519(7544):410–1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

7. Chian, RC, Uzelac, PS, Nargund, G. In vitro maturation of human immature oocytes for fertility preservation. Fertility and Sterility 2013;99(5):1173–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

8. Vogel G. Mouse egg cells made entirely in the lab give rise to healthy offspring. Science 16 Oct 2016; available at http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/10/mouse-egg-cells-made-entirely-lab-give-rise-healthy-offspring?utm_source=sciencemagazine&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=mouseeggs-8602 (last accessed 12 Jun 2017).

9. Whipple T. Brave new world of designer babies will put an end to sex. The Times 28 Mar 2016; available at https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/they-call-it-progress-designer-babies-will-mean-the-end-of-sex-36tglkwq6 (last accessed 11 Aug 2017).

10. Mathews, DJH, Donovan, PJ, Harris, J, Lovell-Badge, R, Savulescu, J, Faden, R. Pluripotent stem cell-derived gametes: Truth and (potential) consequences. Cell Stem Cell 2009;5(1):11–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

11. Cohen, G, Daley, G, Adashi, E. Disruptive reproductive technologies. Science Translational Medicine 2017;9(372):doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.aag2959. Epub 11 Jan 2017, at 2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

12. Janssens, ACJW, van Duijn, CM. An epidemiological perspective on the future of direct-to-consumer personal genome testing. Investigative Genetics 2010;1(10):doi:10.1186/2041-2223-1-10. Epub 4 Oct 2010.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

13. Chesmore, KN, Bartlett, J, Cheng, C, Williams, SM. Complex patterns of association between pleiotropy and transcription factor evolution. Genome Biology and Evolution 2016;8(10):3159–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

14. See note 1, Franklin, Roberts 2006.

15. See note 1, Franklin, Roberts 2006.

16. Greely, HT. The End of Sex and the Future of Human Reproduction. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17. Pang, RTK, Ho, PC. Designer babies. Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Reproductive Medicine 2016;26(2):59–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18. Paul, DB. What was wrong with eugenics? Conflicting narratives and disputed interpretations. Science & Education 2014;23(2):259–71, at 260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19. Sparrow, R. In vitro eugenics. Journal of Medical Ethics 2014;40(11):725–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

20. See note 19, Sparrow 2014, at 728.

21. See note 19, Sparrow 2014, at 728.

22. See note 19, Sparrow 2014, at 726.

23. Sparrow, R. Reproductive technologies, risk, enhancement and the value of genetic relatedness. Journal of Medical Ethics 2014;40(11):741–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

24. See note 19, Sparrow 2014.

25. See note 23, Sparrow 2014.

26. Mertes, H. A moratorium on breeding better babies. Journal of Medical Ethics 2014;40(11):734–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

27. See note 19, Sparrow 2014.

28. See note 23, Sparrow 2014.

29. Vassena, R, Heindryckx, B, Peco, R, Pennings, G, Raya, A, Sermon, K et al. Genome engineering through CRISPR/Cas9 technology in the human germline and pluripotent stem cells. Human Reproduction Update 2016;22(4):411–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

30. Bourne, H, Douglas, T, Savulescu, J. Procreative beneficence and in vitro gametogenesis. Monash Bioethics Review 2012;30(2):29–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

31. See note 10, Mathews et al. 2009.

32. See note 30, Bourne et al. 2012, at 33.

33. See note 30, Bourne et al. 2012.

34. See note 16, Greely 2016, at 12.

35. See note 16, Greely 2016, at 193.

36. See note 16, Greely 2016.

37. Kristensen, SG, Pors, SE, Andersen, CY. Diving into the oocyte pool. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology 2017;29(3):112–118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

38. See note 19, Sparrow 2014.

39. Testa, G, Harris, J. Ethics and synthetic gametes. Bioethics 2005;19(2):146–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

40. See note 29, Vassena et al. 2016.

41. National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Medicine. Human Genome Editing. Science, Ethics, and Governance. Washington: The National Academies Press [Preprint]; 2017; available at https://www.nap.edu/read/24623/ (last accessed 11 Aug 2017).

42. See note 29, Vassena et al. 2016.

43. See note 41, National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Medicine 2017.

44. See note 29, Vassena et al. 2016.

45. See note 29, Vassena et al. 2016.

46. See note 29, Vassena et al. 2016.

47. See note 41, National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Medicine 2017.

48. See note 13, Chesmore et al. 2016.

49. See note 3, de Melo-Martín 2017.

50. Dondorp, W, de Wert, G, Pennings, G, Shenfield, F, Devroey, P, Tarlatzis, B et al. ESHRE Task Force on ethics and Law 20: Sex selection for non-medical reasons. Human Reproduction 2013;28(6):1448–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

51. See note 16, Greely 2016.

52. Sandel, MJ. The ethical implications of human cloning. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 2005;48(2):241–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

53. Daniels, CR, Heidt-Forsythe, E. Gendered eugenics and the problematic of free market reproductive technologies: Sperm and egg donation in the United States. Signs 2012;37(3):719–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

54. See note 52, Sandel 2005.

55. De Rycke, M, Belva, F, Goossens, V, Moutou, C, SenGupta, SB, Traeger-Synodinos, J et al. ESHRE PGD Consortium data collection XIII: Cycles from January to December 2010 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2011. Human Reproduction 2015;30(8):1763–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

56. Harper, JC, Wilton, L, Traeger-Synodinos, J, Goossens, V, Moutou, C, SenGupta, SB et al. The ESHRE PGD Consortium: 10 years of data collection. Human Reproduction Update 2012;18(3):234–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

57. Hens, K, Dondorp, W, Handyside, AH, Harper, J, Newson, AJ, Pennings, G et al. Dynamics and ethics of comprehensive preimplantation genetic testing: A review of the challenges. Human Reproduction Update 2013;19(4):366–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

58. See note 5, Pennings, de Wert 2012.

59. Rulli, T. Preferring a genetically-related child. Journal of Moral Philosophy 2016;13(6):669–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

60. See note 52, Sandel 2005.

61. The President’s Council on Bioethics. Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry. Washington: The President’s Council on Bioethics; 2002, at 106.Google Scholar

62. Sandel, MJ. The Case Against Perfection . Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press; 2007.Google Scholar

63. Häyry, M. Rationality and the Genetic Challenge. Making people better? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010, at 35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

64. Kamm, FM. Is there a problem with enhancement? The American Journal of Bioethics 2005;5(3):5–14, at 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

65. Pennings, G. Personal desires of patients and social obligations of geneticists: applying preimplantation genetic diagnosis for non-medical sex selection. Prenatal diagnosis 2002;22(12):1123–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed