Does sex have a future?The world's leading science journal sits on the fence.
To mark the occasion, in its current issue (July 17) the world’s leading science journal, Nature, asked experts to forecast what reproductive technology will look like in another 30 years. Both the predictions and Nature’s own response make fascinating reading. IVF, it turns out, was just the beginning. Even more dramatic bioethical challenges lie ahead. Ironically, the most significant of these drew the curtain on another ethical debate. The recent emergence of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells) – cells which have all the malleability of embryonic stem cells but which are created without destroying embryos – spells the end of embryonic stem cell research as an avenue for miracle cures for dread diseases. Many of the world's top stem cell scientists are abandoning it and turning to the new technique. However, as iPS cells can theoretically morph into any cell in the body, it is theoretically possible to transform them into “artificial” sperm and eggs. This means that anyone can be the progenitor (the words mother and father hardly seem appropriate) of a child – whether they are six months old or 100 years old. Furthermore, eggs and sperm will no longer be in short supply. Lab technicians will be able to make thousands of them. Instead of being conceived and born in love, human life will become a manufactured artefact. “They would become objects and would be used as objects,” says Davor Solter, of the Institute of Medical Biology in Singapore. “I have no idea what kind of moral value or rights we would give to those embryos. We'll probably go through the same agonizing we did with IVF. It could be terrible to begin with, but then it'll become a fact of life. Maybe 20–30 years from now we'll read in newspapers that someone made 20,000 embryos and studied their development, and we'll decide it's OK.” Artificial wombs are another possibility, some scientists believe. “You could have as many or as few progeny as you want,” muses Dr Solter. However, this could be a double-edged sword. As IVF techniques improve and as the age of viability of unborn children falls, it may be possible to keep aborted babies alive, floating in vats and tethered to artificial placentas. It might even become unlawful not to do it. Unsettling, to say the least. Rapid improvements in genetic screening and in knowledge of the human genome mean that designer babies will be possible. Parents could choose embryos to give them their best chance for a healthy and successful life. The sheer complexity of making such choices will be daunting for parents. “True, with thousands of genetic risk variants contributing to multiple different conditions, no embryo will have the perfect genetic future,” observes Nature. “But these techniques could allow parents to create a top-five wish-list of the characteristics they most want for their... and choose the embryo most likely to meet those criteria.” All these developments are speculative, of course. Years of work at the lab bench are needed to make them a reality. Then they have to be offered at a commercially sustainable price. And no one knows what products will attract consumers. Even so, one thing is absolutely certain. These innovations would commodify human life and create human beings who have no natural links to other human beings. The social consequences will be immense. What about the ethics of these “transformative technologies”? Amazingly, the best the mouthpiece for world science can do is stammer “Duh, dunno”. Fearless when it comes to tongue-lashing governments over climate change, shrinking research budgets, or high school biology texts which teach intelligent design, Nature makes a spineless, ethically neutral fudge when it deals with the future of sex. “Nothing is sacred in human biology — and researchers should ensure that nothing is diminished about human reproduction by starting it in the lab”. But if nothing is sacred, what is the problem with a “diminished” approach to procreation? Basically Nature is afraid to express an opinion. To greet the long-awaited arrival of Brave New World with a brass band would be madness. To say that commercial manipulation of human reproduction is dangerous, or even unethical, would mean restricting the sacred right of scientists to do research. So Nature sits on the fence. To paraphrase an old chestnut of motivational talks, "There are three types of journals in the world, those who make things happen, those who watch things happen and those who wonder what’s happening!" This is not the posture that the world’s leading science journal has adopted about climate change, for instance. For years Nature has loudly denounced the “transformative technologies” of carbon-emitting industries because they will blight future generations. It sees this as a major ethical issue. Is the coming revolution in human reproduction any less dangerous? Nature is abdicating its responsibility to future generations by refusing to question the new technologies and by not using its influence to call for strict regulation. But perhaps that is to be expected. If you refuse to see humanity in an embryo, perhaps you lose something of your own humanity -- your capacity for ethical discernment. Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet. |
related articlesmorebythisauthorfree updates |
Home | SiteMap | 
RSS | Atom | 
del.icio.us | Privacy Policy |
MercatorNet - New Media Foundation Ltd © 2004 - 2008 All rights reserved
Comment (10)
Email
Print
Technorati
digg
Thirty years ago next week the world’s first IVF
baby was born in Britain. That was a whole generation ago. Now married, Louise
Brown has a naturally-conceived child of her own and 4 million more babies have
been born through IVF. So July 25, 1978 was a landmark day in our relationship
with technology: the natural process of creating life through love (ideally, at least)
was challenged by one which assembled life for a profit. From a controversial solution
to infertility, in vitro fertilisation swiftly grew into an industry of its own
and opened the door to other even more controversial developments, like
genetic engineering and stem cell research.
Comments (10)
Warwick Marsh said...Another brilliant expose of our morally bankrupt hypocritical science fraternity. As the singer in ‘Switchfoot’ says “What have we become”
Yours for our Children
Warwick Marsh
Fatherhood Foundation
-- | Saturday, 19 July 2008 at 5:06 pm
barry morgan said...Scientists are only human and because of the exalted status of science in todays secularised world are more likely likely than most to sucumb to an imaginary egoistic status as high priests of ‘progress’. The increasing decline in religious belief and ethics is having its predictable consequences. Huxley, it seems, wasn’t so far off with his Brave New World.
Only God knows where it will end, but one thing is certain, without Him it will end in sadness and tears.
Australia | Saturday, 19 July 2008 at 9:59 pm
Beauty said...Nothing surprises now. But God will get his own back. He is doing it now. What with climate changes and so forth He will destroy this world in time so these things won’t happen.
United Kingdom | Sunday, 20 July 2008 at 11:54 pm
Anonymous said...We left Kansas a long long time ago, and Oz is much stranger than we could ever have imagined.
When I was in law school, I distinctly remember reading a few law cases where the subject of the litigation was ownership of sperm and embryos.
As a law clerk in a federal court, I remember a prisoner suing to force the prison to continue his hormone therapy to become feminized and… winning.
I know the judges didn’t want to hear those cases, most judges have little tolerance for bs and farce in their courtroom—but they heard these cases. They sat in their black gowns and sraight facedly attempted to find “justice” in those situations, with monkeys flying all around the courtroom making a mockery of the old adage, “common sense shouldn’t leave the courtroom.” Oh, it has left alright.
If it weren’t so tragic, you could laugh. You can’t cry… it deserves nothing but eternal scorn, to be mocked and derided back into the hell it came from. The devil can’t stand being mocked and laughed at for being called what he is, the prototypical loser, emasculated forever. People just need to start calling things as they see them. Enough of this whining and complaining… so you can’t conceive, I’m really sorry, tough. Get over it. Go adopt a baby, don’t ejaculate in a petri dish and have a masked man put it into your wifes vagina under the bright lights of a surgical center. What kind of man does that?
Don’t want to conceive? Don’t have sex. Don’t have some dude take scissors to your manhood. What kind of man does that?
I am done with sympathy for that crap. It isn’t understandable, it ain’t natural. Where are our satirists?! Hogarth would have a lot of fun.
-- | Thursday, 24 July 2008 at 6:31 am
Darren Hall said...If all this is possible, what type of creatures will we evolve into? I think perhaps, sexless, unlively humanoids; no joy, no vitality.
Sexual reproduction raised the level of life on this planet;
it was what God raised out of the primordial ooze or as the Bible says “out of the dust of the earth”; male and female in His image.
This is DE-evolution; we’re returning ourselves to dust not just physically, but spiritually.
United States | Thursday, 24 July 2008 at 7:02 am
Tricia said...I am just wondering when God is going to say “Enough!” We are a sad group and we are creating our own hell. Lord, have mercy on us.
United States | Thursday, 24 July 2008 at 2:17 pm
David Page said...Does anyone here believe that things are worse now than they were 100 or 200 years ago?
United States | Thursday, 24 July 2008 at 10:40 pm
reuben eboh said...Sex is the basic knowledge of God’s method of procreation.
Science is supposedly a relevation of God,s masterful nature to humanity at appropriate time. But overtly man will always use the ability to be like God in a dismall form.
I once read a book tilted “HUMANIOD” can not recall the author! it is all about the man made intelligent robot that took over the ability of man to think and subjugated man to nothing. In the next century man will be completely robotised and sex will no longer be nature’s wisdom. So help us God!
Nigeria | Saturday, 26 July 2008 at 9:23 pm
Teacher said...Our society should always focus on the highest standards for OUR CHILDREN. They depend on us to provide a sound future. Our world is OVER populated, adolescents are maturing at 30, and sexual liberation has left STD scars that make conception all but impossible. This is a price few teens realize they may be paying for their carefree fun. Babies are a serious responsibility. Parents are not “owners”, but rather CAREtakers, custodians, GUARDians. A baby is not a cute plaything. Parenting is not a right, but a calling. Germany’s tragic history gave them the sense to outlaw the purchasing of sperm. Yes, we feel for barren couples, but life offers many challenges and letdowns for us all. Even adopted children face heartache when they come to terms with their missing lineage. A child will always yearn to know WHO his/her parents are. Science has a long way to go. Just because we “can” doesn’t mean we “should.”
United States | Wednesday, 30 July 2008 at 1:03 am
B.N said...Good observation and great article! While science condemns the acts that are not within “nature” that are disturbing the natural balance with issues such as deforestation etc.it turns a blind eye to the disturbing of nature in human reproduction. If we were to prevent animals from producing offspring naturally and instead we chose the genetically best and produce them artificially we would be acting in a stupid and detrimental manner. It would be unethical. What about the simple unnaturalness of IVF?!
Australia | Wednesday, 30 July 2008 at 5:51 pm
Page 1 of 1 :
New comment