We tend to give utilitarianism a hard time in “Pointed Remarks”. But sometimes we could do with a bit more utilitarianism. It might keep the media – and many doctors, too – from being so dewy-eyed about apparent successes. Take IVF, which celebrated, so to speak, its 40th anniversary this week, with the birthday of Louise Brown.
In some respects, IVF has been quite a success. An estimated 8 million IVF children have been born since then. A thriving industry has grown up, worth some US$15 billion, making lots of doctors, scientists, technicians and administrators very wealthy. That is the happiness side of the ledger.
But how about the women who endured cycle after cycle of IVF without conceiving? Their lives have been filled with suffering as a result. And there are far more of them than women who eventually conceived. How about the destruction of millions upon millions of human embryos? And how about the disturbing future of IVF – designer babies and genetically-engineered children? That is the pain side of the ledger. It hasn’t been quantified, of course, but it must be acknowledged. I would venture to say that the balance is negative.
Whether I’m right or wrong about that, I do think that we need a clearer vision of the negative side of assisted reproductive technology.
In some respects, IVF has been quite a success. An estimated 8 million IVF children have been born since then. A thriving industry has grown up, worth some US$15 billion, making lots of doctors, scientists, technicians and administrators very wealthy. That is the happiness side of the ledger.
But how about the women who endured cycle after cycle of IVF without conceiving? Their lives have been filled with suffering as a result. And there are far more of them than women who eventually conceived. How about the destruction of millions upon millions of human embryos? And how about the disturbing future of IVF – designer babies and genetically-engineered children? That is the pain side of the ledger. It hasn’t been quantified, of course, but it must be acknowledged. I would venture to say that the balance is negative.
Whether I’m right or wrong about that, I do think that we need a clearer vision of the negative side of assisted reproductive technology.
 Michael Cook Editor BioEdge |  |  |  |
NEWS THIS WEEK
by Michael Cook | Jul 28, 2018
Mixing the "desperation" of couples for a child and the "avarice" of private practice is a "dangerous combination".by Michael Cook | Jul 28, 2018
Most humans are chimerasby Michael Cook | Jul 28, 2018
Some feel the ban went too farby Michael Cook | Jul 28, 2018
And finds that it is not pleasantby Xavier Symons | Jul 28, 2018
Recent contributions to the literature have been particularly strident.by Xavier Symons | Jul 28, 2018
Authorities are now pro-natalist -- but Chinese society is not.by Michael Cook | Jul 27, 2018
Latest official report reveals reasonsby Michael Cook | Jul 27, 2018
And only one-third have been successfulIN DEPTH THIS WEEK
by Gary Lewis | Jul 27, 2018
Predatory journals masquerade as legitimate, mainstream journalsAnother reason why cloning probably won’t work
by Michael Cook | 28 Jul 2018 |
Human cloning – illegal around the world -- is just a glimmer on the horizon of some rogue scientists. However, there are reasons why it might not work, in any case, says Dr Paul Knoepfler, on his blog, The Niche.
The popular supposition is that cloning will produce an exact physical duplicate of the person cloned. The Boys from Brazil, a novel and film from the late 70s, expresses this perfectly. In the 60s Dr Mengele cloned Hitler 94 times and sent the babies around the world to be adopted.
However, Knoepfler reminds his readers that contemporary research has shown that many people are actually chimeras; their cells carry a mixture of subtly different genetic codes:
This reality means that contrary to decades of dogma, not all of our cells have the same genomes. In fact, within our one body we can have many subtly different genomes. The variance may functionally be at a single gene or a combination. These genomic variances in one person mean that our cells have a certain degree of randomness and such variability may alter how our bodies function such as how our brains operate.
So the Hitler clones would have been different depending on which cell was selected to create the duplicated organism. In addition, there would be epigenetic and environmental differences which would result in further divergence from the original of Der Führer. “Of course,” he concludes, “the ethics of human reproductive cloning are not trivial as well, but keep in mind all you DIY cloners that you may not get what you wanted anyway due to chimerism.”
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario