Ethical Issues in New Uses of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis
By Edgar Dahl,
Human Reproduction
| 06. 01. 2003
Vol.18, No. 7
[Editor's note: In this brief article,
German bioethicist Edgar Dahl raises and dismisses five objections
to the future use of embryo screening to choose the sexual orientation
of children. He does not mention any evidence for, or controversy
about, a "gay gene," but concludes that if a "safe
and reliable genetic test" for sexual orientation were
to become available, "parents should clearly be allowed"
to use it, as long as they are permitted to select for homosexual
as well as heterosexual children. Dahl has previously argued
that PGD should be allowed for sex selection for social reasons.]
Should parents be allowed to use preimplantation
genetic diagnosis to choose the sexual orientation of their
children?
Extending the application of preimplantation genetic
diagnosis (PGD) to screen embryos for non-medical traits such
as gender, height and intelligence, raises serious moral, legal,
and social issues. In this paper I consider the possibility
of using PGD to select the sexual orientation of offspring.
After considering five potential objections, I conclude that
parents should be permitted to use PGD to choose...
Related Articles
By Rachel Hall, The Guardian | 11.20.2025
Couples are needlessly going through IVF because male infertility is under-researched, with the NHS too often failing to diagnose treatable causes, leading experts have said.
Poor understanding among GPs and a lack of specialists and NHS testing means male infertility...
By Grace Won, KQED [with CGS' Katie Hasson] | 12.02.2025
In the U.S., it’s illegal to edit genes in human embryos with the intention of creating a genetically engineered baby. But according to the Wall Street Journal, Bay Area startups are focused on just that. It wouldn’t be the first...
By Pam Belluck and Carl Zimmer, The New York Times | 11.19.2025
Gene-editing therapies offer great hope for treating rare diseases, but they face big hurdles: the tremendous time and resources involved in devising a treatment that might only apply to a small number of patients.
A study published on Wednesday...
Several recent Biopolitical Times posts (1, 2, 3, 4) have called attention to the alarmingly rapid commercialization of “designer baby” technologies: polygenic embryo screening (especially its use to purportedly screen for traits like intelligence), in vitro gametogenesis (lab-made eggs and sperm), and heritable genome editing (also termed embryo editing or reproductive gene editing). Those three, together with artificial wombs, have been dubbed the “Gattaca stack” by Brian Armstrong, CEO of the cryptocurrency company...
