When Making Babies Goes High Tech: A Future Tense Event Recap
By Ariel Bogle,
Slate
| 11. 24. 2014
[Quotes CGS's Marcy Darnovsky]
Untitled Document
In vitro fertilization was originally intended to help a very specific young, married, and female demographic to conceive. But a lot has changed since Louise Brown, the first test tube baby, was born in 1978. The explosion of single mothers and same-sex parents using the procedure has attracted a lot of attention, but society also needs to grapple with the questions of control, regulation, and access that other emerging reproductive technologies could raise. From pre-implantation genetic screening to exo-wombs, these changes could even evolve our most basic notions of family and society.
A first step may be agreeing to talk about this possible future at all. The highly personal nature of reproductive science and technology makes it a difficult topic to discuss and legislate, according to speakers at a Future Tense event on the future of reproduction in Washington, D.C., last week. After all, we’re not talking about hip replacement surgery; this is our future children and grandchildren. As Dieter Egli, a senior research fellow at the New York Stem Cell Foundation, put it: “When we touch the...
Related Articles
By Rob Stein, NPR [cites CGS' Katie Hasson] | 08.06.2025
A Chinese scientist horrified the world in 2018 when he revealed he had secretly engineered the birth of the world's first gene-edited babies.
His work was reviled as reckless and unethical because, among other reasons, gene-editing was so new...
By Susanna Smith, Genetic Frontiers | 07.28.2025
Key Topics
How does the American far right view genetics and genetic technologies?
What is the history of the American cultural pursuit of trying to choose smarter children? What has science shown us about the relationship of heredity and intelligence...
By Arthur Caplan and James Tabery, Scientific American | 07.28.2025
An understandable ethics outcry greeted the June announcement of a software platform that offers aspiring parents “genetic optimization” of their embryos. Touted by Nucleus Genomics’ CEO Kian Sadeghi, the $5,999 service, dubbed “Nucleus Embryo,” promised optimization of...
By John H. Evans, Craig Callender, Neal K. Devaraj, Farren J. Isaacs, and Gregory E. Kaebnick, Issues in Science and Technology | 07.04.2025
The controversy around a ban on “mirror life” should lead to a more nuanced public conversation about how to manage the benefits and risks of precursor biotechnologies.
About five years ago, the five of us formed a discussion group to...