Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Health & Wellness

Stem Cells and IVF: The Wild West of Reproductive Technology

By Rick Weiss, Science Progress. Posted August 19, 2008.


The fledgling fertility business of a few years ago has exploded into a giant industry; one that is largely unregulated by our squeamish government.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Americans don't want Uncle Sam slithering between their bed sheets. But recent events in the field of human embryonic stem cell research suggest we'd do well to let the bearded geezer's foot into the bedroom door a tad.

To quote Tom Friedman, "Let me explain."

A few decades ago, the U.S. government was in a position to keep a close eye on, and perhaps even regulate, the fledgling fertility clinic business. Doctors were learning, pretty much by the seat of their pants, how to mix sperm and eggs in laboratory dishes to make human embryos that could then be transferred to the wombs of women who were having trouble getting pregnant.

The technology was a real medical and societal breakthrough. But the decision of how to deal with the newly emerging business of assisted reproductive technology was complicated because the field resided -- and still resides -- in a peculiar regulatory space. To the extent that it constitutes the practice of medicine, it is not subject to federal oversight. But to the extent it constitutes experimentation, it would be subject to a wide array of federal and international rules relating to research on human subjects.

As it turned out, the U.S. government did not want to go there. For one thing, baby-making seemed a very private matter. More importantly, the field was and remains a political hot potato, irrevocably related to the abortion debate and subject to endless sparring among those who do and do not think that microscopic human embryos have the same moral standing as late-stage fetuses or adults. That's relevant because far more embryos are thrown away (or frozen indefinitely in liquid nitrogen) than are turned into babies at in vitro fertilization clinics.

Well, it was one thing for federal overseers to ignore plain vanilla IVF. But of course, things expanded. Today, the number of procedures performed on fertility clinic clients without any good experimental proof of their safety is rather amazing. Over the years, clinics have increasingly turned to intracytoplasmic sperm injection (in which sperm are jammed into an egg, rather than being allowed to fertilize under their own tadpole-like power), with uncertain effects on the recipient egg's chromosomes. Women's eggs have been frozen, then thawed months or years later for fertilization, with virtually no data from animal or human studies to assure that those eggs are not genetically damaged by the process. And increasingly, cells are being plucked for analysis from early embryos before those embryos are transferred to a womb, to test for the presence of various genetic traits. The practice can prevent the birth of children harboring damaging mutations, but could also be used to select embryos with preferred genders or traits. That practice raises ethical concerns about what traits, if any, are appropriate to select for in a child, along with medical concerns about possible developmental effects of the cell-biopsy procedure itself -- none of which, because of the federal government's queasiness, are being adequately addressed.

Finally there are important ethical, economic, and other societal questions that emerge from the related market in sperm and egg "donation," a word that rightly belongs in quotes in this context since altruism is but a small part of the motivation that drives this lucrative industry. Just yesterday, CNN reported disturbing evidence that as a result of the declining economy, a growing number of young women are turning to egg donation as a means of making ends meet -- disturbing not because this is an inherently bad practice but because it is one with real medical and psychological risks and should arguably be played by rules more sensitive than those of unfettered capitalism.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: bush, stem cell research, embryo, ivf

Rick Weiss is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Health and Wellness! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
If Colorado's Amendment 48 passes, all those embryos in liquid nitrogen will be "people"
Posted by: fanny666 on Aug 19, 2008 9:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Amendment 48 defines any fertilized egg as a "person".

The rightwing's knowledge of science is so dim that they don't even realize: pregnancy begins when the fertilized egg implants in the uterine lining, not when the sperm hits the egg. IUD birth control, for example, prevents uterine implantation. Therefore, this method of birth control would be a homicide.

Click here to help Colorado defeat this amendment

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Huh?
Posted by: benzene on Aug 19, 2008 10:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And one thing this country does not need is a new Wild West on the outer borders of today's reprotech badlands.

Aside from being a bad metaphor, where is the evidence to support this claim? Why would a largely unregulated research environment be bad for the country? Sure, it may not be a moral environment, but then again, neither are companies that make bullets and bombs but they continue to thrive and provide profit. Is it because an unregulated research environment cannot be productively taxed?

Simply put, somewhere in the world, there will always be people and facilities that don't give a flying monkey shit about morals and will do the research that federal regulations may prevent us from doing ourselves. And given that research done in the peer-reviewed environment here in the U.S. is likely to be safer anyway, which would you rather have?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This article pretends
Posted by: Dboy on Aug 21, 2008 10:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article pretends that the rest of the world doesn't exist. America is not isolated in some sterile petri dish. There's a whole big world out there...a world of competitors. And if the US decides that every sperm is sacred, or that all American vaginas are the property of the US government, then that's just one more nail in the coffin for the sciences in America. The rising fear of science in America hands Asia an edge in vast fields of research. If we become hostile to science, then scientists will simply leave and do their research elsewhere. It's really that simple. Growing replacement organs in bioreactors is coming; tissue repair is coming; brain augmentation is coming; other sensory augmentations are coming; custom genomes are coming; genomic screening is coming. Within the next two years, the average American will be able to send a sample off to a lab and get a complete genetic workup which can then be stored on a SQL database at home (you can do it now, but it costs several thousand dollars). People will then be able to search their own genomes for various risk-factors as new genetic markers are identified. There are people building labs in their houses now. Biotech hobbyist groups are now showing up. There's even a biotech artist movement going on. There's going to be a biotech meat product out by 2010 (animal muscle tissue grown in a lab..no need to grow a full animal. yum!..lab steak!) There's a biotech/genetics/evolutionary biology videogame coming out later this year (Spore). There's a biotech movie coming out at the beginning of 2009 (Splice). American hostility to these things will accomplish nothing.

dboy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]