Fukuyama states that “countries
must regulate…technology… [to]…discriminate between… technolog[y]…that
“promote[s] human flourishing, and those that pose a threat to human dignity
and well-being” (460). Our nation
“failed to understand that a…new potential for destruction had been created”
with the atomic bomb (459); we decimated thousands of human lives in Hiroshima
and Nagasaki. Thus, careful deliberation and scrutiny must occur in the process
of scientific regulation. However, conflicting
conceptions in various research projects such as in vetro fertilization, stem
cell research, and eugenics makes for challenging legislation.
Louise Brown, in 1978, was the first child born from in
vetro fertilization (IVF)—in which multiple fertilized embryos are transferred
from a petri dish into a woman’s uterus.
A procedure that was experimental, but gave hope to couples that could
not conceive a child (Rosenberg). The
transferring of multiple embryos into a woman’s uterus, however, raised
questions because of the risk of multiple pregnancies that could result in medical
complications, such as infantile death (“New Study Finds”). Still, there are no regulations regarding how
many embryos can be transferred into a woman’s uterus; there are only guidelines
(New). Because IVF is costly, many women
(and doctors) choose to administer multiple embryos into the uterus so that the
probability of conception is greater.
Heuy referenced Dr. Keith Barrington’s 2007 study in which he proposed that
only one embryo be administered IVF to reduce the risk of multiple births
causing infantile death (“New Study Finds”), and since July 2010, Quebec’s fertility
centers have adopted Barrington’s method, and thus far “twin gestation rates
have dropped from 30% to 3.8%” (Huey).
Stem
cell research holds great potential to treat human diseases, yet their
derivation and use raise ethical, social, and legal concerns (“Guidelines for
Human”). In the past, the Human
Pluripotent Stem Cell Research, in Canada, “had no laws to govern it, nor were
there guidelines for researchers, research ethics boards, or funding agencies
on how stem cells may be derived and used” (“Guidelines for Human”). Because of the concerns, the federal
government legislated an “Act Respecting Assisted Human Reproduction and Related
Research” in 2004 which applies to the derivation of human embryonic and human
induced stem cell research (“Guidelines for Human”). Researchers, Beeson and Lippman, indicate in
their essay that the ardent pursuit in egg harvesting for stem cell research,
in which young women are donating and selling their ova for clinical purposes,
such as fertility clinics, and non-clinical purposes, such as in experimental
cloning studies, are being exploited by these industries for commercialization and
is placing women’s health at risk for hyperstimulation syndrome (overstimulation
of ovaries) which has been suggested in studies as a link to ovarian cancer (1). “Biotechnology may have great potential for
advancing healing, but in the context of inadequate regulation…, it threatens
to convert the bodies of women into instruments for use…” (Beeson and Lippman 8).
In Regulating
Eugenics, the Harvard Law Review quoted Francis Galton’s definition of eugenics:
“[Eugenics is] the science of improving stock… [and]…especially in the case of
man, [it is a method] to give…more suitable races…a better chance of
prevailing…over the less suitable [races]” (1579). Motivated by racism and subjugation, compulsory
sterilization laws were enacted in 1907, and by 1956 most states still had this
law (“Regulating Eugenics” 1580). Today,
however, “liberal eugenics,” which advocates genetic modification of humans,
include the “screening for genes that cause serious disabilities…to genetically
engineering smarter children,” (1582) has both proponents and opponents with conflicting
conceptions as to whether liberal eugenics should be regulated. Proponents argue that liberal eugenics
respects “traditional liberal values” such as individualism and egalitarianism
(1582), but opponents argue that there is poor understanding to this type of
technology and that any indiscriminate activity with the human genome could be
catastrophic (1584).
Proposed
regulation, as Intemann and de Melo-Martin explained, should be value-based
meaning that decisions regarding research priorities and methodologies and what
regulations to legislate “should not be made solely by scientific or epistemic
criteria” (656) or by politicians (658).
The reason for this is that most “scientists are not trained in ethics…
[and]…will often have self-interested reasons” and “politicians often
have…politically motivated agendas” (657-8).
More
deliberations need to take place to regulate science relating to human safety,
ethics, and social values, but the process is complex with numerous conflicting
conceptions. Nevertheless, we must carefully
discriminate between new technology for human benefit and ones that threaten
humankind, and legislate accordingly.
Works
Cited
Beeson, Diane and Abby
Lippman. “Egg Harvesting for Stem Cell
Research: Medical Risks
and Ethical Problems.”
RBM Online 13:[Unassigned Issue] (2006): 1-11.
Web.
25
July 2013.
“Guidelines for Human Pluripotent Stem Cell
Research.” Canadian Institutes of Health
Research. Canada.gc.ca, 7 June 2005. Web.
25 July 2013.
Huey, Brigid. “New Study Finds Stronger Regulations of In
Vitro Fertilization May Save
Lives.” Université
de Montréal: UdeMNouvelles, 18 April 2011.
Web. 25 July
2013.
Intemann, Kristen K.
and Inmaculanda de Melo-Martin.
“Regulating Scientific Research:
Should Scientists Be Left Alone?” The
FASEB Journal 22:3 (2008):
654-58. Web.
20 July 2013.
New, Jennifer. “Should In Vitro Fertilization Be
Regulated?” Divine Caroline. Web. 25
July 2013.
“Regulating
Eugenics.” Harvard Law Review 121:6 (2008): 1578-1599. Web. 25 July 2013.
Rosenberg,
Jennifer. “First Test-Tube Baby: Louise
Brown.” About.com, n.d. Web.
25 July
2013.
Photograph from: http://www.slideshare.net/MrRyanSIS/natural-sciences-2012-13-14443920
Comments
Post a Comment