The production of synthesized sperm provides an emotive quandary with a depth of far reaching consequences. Among those questions reflecting the ethical integrity of such treatments has been the reported public concern over the potential that one day it may be possible to father a child from beyond the grave; or that in time same sex partners could become natural parents using stem cell fertility treatments. Questions of this nature pose a strong case for opposition based on religious beliefs, potential psycho-social and socio-economic implications. Again, counter arguments have been suggested; one response posted suggested, “I don't think religious people should have a say on this matter as Science is the truth of all that we know” (dailymail.co.uk/health). According to Dr Allen Pacey, designer babies with desirable attributes may become, “The most important social harm likely to result from non-regulation of genetic testing is the facilitation and encouragement of free-market eugenics, driven by aggressive marketing and a variety of social trends” (hgc.gov.uk).
The socio-economic implications of such treatments hold the most potential for a greater impact. There are fears in the community that this form of treatment may become elitist, with only the rich having access to it. Others have suggested that we are already globally over populated; would the perfect infertility cure exacerbate the situation even further? Many believe that it is the function and the right of all living organisms to procreate and fertility treatments offer a lending hand to nature. Professor Karim argues, “Male infertility is a growing problem” (Daily Mail, 2009) and the HGC have published details of “an acute shortage of donor sperm diminishing the capacity of the UK’s public and private health sectors to treat infertility, attributed to the removal, in 2005, of entitlement to donor anonymity (hgc.gov.uk). The HFEA have suggested that it fertility clinics need to be more transparent over treatment costs (timesonline.co.uk). Current statistics published by IVF-Worldwide.com state,” IVF is indeed a growing industry with 1 in 6 couples having fertility problems. The average cost per cycle in the UK is between $7500 (USD) and $10,000 (USD); the total cost for successful treatment up to birth is between $2500 (USD) and $937,500 (USD)” (ivf-worldwide.org). If this new treatment were to prove more cost effective than IVF, potentially releasing NHS funds to target other areas, then clearly there would be a case for further development.
Headline such as “On brink of a society without any need for men” (Daily Mail, 2009) has also elicited many powerful views from the public, including, “My concerns with this new breakthrough are if we need it, with populations being so high” (dailymail.co.uk/health), and “This is truly scary. Whilst I support advances in medicine to find cures for cancer and to reverse paralysis etc., this is totally unnecessary and immoral. This kind of Frankenstein experiment should be stopped” (dailymail.co.uk/debate).Fears that the current HFE code of conduct may be open to misuse in the future are clearly abundant, with the threat of a situation which some fear may result in a ‘point of no return’ through irrevocable genetic meddling.
The HFEA are very specific with regard to in vitro gametes, providing strong counter argument against any such fears. The HFE Act 2008 (amendment) states, “The derivation of in-vitro derived gametes for research does not require a licence from the HFEA. However, a licence would be required if researchers wished to use in vitro derived gametes to create an embryo to test whether they were capable of fertilisation. Anybody wishing to create embryos for research using in vitro derived gametes would require a licence from the HFEA” (hfea.gov.uk). The Act continues, “Under the HFE Act (as amended), in vitro derived gametes are allowed for research but not treatment (hfea.gov.uk). In addition, the HFEA have also recognised the importance of predicting any potential ‘domino effects’ that may occur at a genetic level as a direct result of the production of artificial sperm. The HFEA have been “concentrating on 'horizon-scanning' work” and is “continuing to monitor the progress of scientific research in this area” (hgc.gov.uk). The recognition that equal measure must be applied through the horizon-scanning project in order to shield the natural selection process from the manufacture of artificial gametes is a very important step; something that the HFEA strongly support in defence of their controls on today’s scientific studies. In response to the amendments of 2008 Dr David King, Director of Human Genetics Alert, responded, “The new Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act is definitely a step in the wrong direction, although none of the changes it makes are, in themselves, disastrous; the most worrying aspect is the opening of the door to research on Human Genetic Modification” (hgalert.org).
Conclusion
There can be no doubt that the 21st century is witnessing a laboratory driven scientific revolution with a myriad of developmental studies being undertaken globally; rooted firmly in this core are studies into human genetics and recombinant DNA techniques (hgc.gov.uk). Even though these steps are on the whole encouraging, many challenges still remain. Among those challenges is public opinion; even though there have been many changes in public attitude to genetic advances, those opinions surrounding the creation of life are still sensitive. Although it is true that we all share a common goal and that the aim of any genetic testing is to strengthen the human race against the future, there are strong links to suggest that a lack of genetic variability and random mutation in a population often holds catastrophic consequences. Clearly there are still many options we must to consider and debate in order to agree how to progress, however, progress we must and undeniably this must involve genetic studies. Perhaps the question we should be asking is just because we have developed the technology with which to continue studies of this nature, should we really consider moving forward with the studies without the ability of guaranteeing all potential outcomes.
References
Macrae, F. (2009) Daily Mail [online]. London, UK. Available from : - [Accessed 6th December 2009].
Hanlon, M. (2009) Daily Mail [online]. London, UK. Available from : - [Accessed 6th December 2009]
Templeton, S-K. (2009) The Times [online]. London, UK. Available from :
[Accessed 6th December 2009].
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (2009) Backgrounds and Briefings: In Vitro Derived Gametes [online]. London, UK. Available from : -
[Accessed 6th December 2009].
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (2009) HFE Act 2008 (amended) [online]. London, UK. Available from : -
[Accessed 6th December 2009].
Pacey, A. (2009) Human Genetics Committee: Responses to the Supply of Genetics Tests Direct to the Public [online]. London, UK. Available from : -
[Accessed 6th December 2009].
Human Genetics Committee (2009): Responses to the Supply of Genetics Tests Direct to the Public [online]. London, UK. Available from : -
[Accessed 6th December 2009].
Human Genetics Committee (2009): Responses to ‘Whose hands on your Genes’ [online]. London, UK. Available from : -
[Accessed 6th December 2009].
Dr King, D (2009). HFEA Act – a Commentary [online]. UK. Available from : -
[Accessed 6th December 2009].
Henderson, M (2009). The Times [online]. London, UK. Available from : -
[Accessed 6th December 2009).
Graham, P C (2009). Stem Cells and Development [online]. New York, USA. Available from : -
[Accessed 6th December 2009].
Graham, P C (2009). Stem Cells and Development [online]. New York, USA. Available from:-
[Accessed 6th December 2009].
Professor Shoham, Z; Professor Leong, M (2009). IVF World Wide [online]. Available from:-
[Accessed 6th December 2009].
Professor Shoham, Z; Professor Leong, M (2009). IVF World Wide [online]. Available from:-
[Accessed 6th December 2009].
Professor Shoham, Z; Professor Leong, M (2009). IVF World Wide [online]. Available from:-
[Accessed 6th December 2009].
Professor Shoham, Z; Professor Leong, M (2009). IVF World Wide [online]. Available from:-
[Accessed 6th December 2009].
References to Public Opinion Quotes
Daily Mail [online] Quote “I don't think religious people should have a say on this matter as Science is the truth of all that we know.” London, UK. Available from : -
Daily Mail [online] Quote “My concerns with this new breakthrough are if we need it, with populations being so high.” London, UK. Available from : -
Daily Mail [online] Quote “This is truly scary. Whilst I support advances in medicine to find cures for cancer and to reverse paralysis etc., this is totally unnecessary and immoral. This kind of Frankenstein experiment should be stopped.” London, UK. Available from : -
Bibliography
[Accessed 6th December 2009].
[Accessed 6th December 2009].
[Accessed 6th December 2009].
[Accessed 6th December 2009].
[Accessed 6th December 2009].
[Accessed 6th December 2009].
[Accessed 6th December 2009].
[Accessed 6th December 2009].
[Accessed 6th December 2009].
[Accessed 6th December 2009].
[Accessed 6th December 2009].
[Accessed 6th December 2009].
[Accessed 6th December 2009].
[Accessed 6th December 2009].