Notre Dame Institute for Advanced Study sponsors two-part seminar discussing past, present, and future uses of biotechnology around the globe

 

Biotechnology affects each of our lives every day.  A field that includes any application of biology to humans, animals, or plants through technological means, biotechnology underlies the fabric of modern society.  Genetically modified foods, robotics, reproductive technology, and antibiotics are but a few of its many manifestations.

Allie Tichenor, Residential Fellow at the Notre Dame Institute for Advanced Study, recently conducted a two-part seminar entitled “Biotechnology, Gender Wars, and Human Rights in the Age of Twitter” to delve into the scientific, legal, economic, and moral issues that often accompany scientific progress.

Tichenor believes that any responsible discussion of biotechnology must also consider morality; it is crucial that science never prioritizes progress over the human good.

“Safeguarding freedom of science and research is important, but as history has shown us, we cannot lose sight of the need to safeguard human dignity as well,” she told the Rover.

The seminar’s lecture and discussion focused primarily on the emergence of new reproductive technologies, and Tichenor facilitated fruitful discussion between the small group of attending undergraduate students.  Prior to attending the seminar, students read excerpts from several books, including Test Tube Families: Why the Fertility Industry Needs Legal Regulation.  Tichenor provided many insights about other nations’ fertility industry regulations vis-à-vis those of the United States.

The book’s author, Naomi Cahn, writes about her experiences with in-vitro fertilization and subsequent concern about the human rights surrounding alternative fertilization methods, as well as the legal questions of competing interests—those of the parents, child, donors, and the industry itself.

In her book, Cahn points out the current lack of industry regulation in the United States, as sperm and egg donation banks are largely in the hands of state governments, and few choose to regulate these businesses in any capacity.

Tichenor noted Cahn’s arguments and discussed the absence of regulation surrounding reproductive technologies such as in-vitro fertilization.  She distributed a sperm donor questionnaire to each student to illustrate that many donation banks are not required by law to conduct medical testing.  Rather, the prospective donor must merely check boxes to delineate his medical history.

Many seemed surprised by the specificity of the sperm donor form.  In addition to checking boxes pertaining to their medical history, donors are asked to provide their SAT scores, eye color, bone structure, tanning ability, talents, and even a message to their future child—all in three lines or fewer.  Attendees noted that such a form seemed to echo the eugenics movement.

Students also discussed the possibility of identity crisis for a conceived child if he was to be barred from meeting his father, as the sperm donation banks promise to protect the privacy rights of their donors.  Additionally, students believed that the form illustrated the qualities that modern society is coming to value more and more, namely, intelligence and appearance.

Strikingly, Tichenor noted that there is no limit on the number of sperm donations one can make.  In fact, the business itself is extremely lucrative and is marketed primarily to college-aged men and women who want to rid themselves of debt or simply wish to make money quickly and easily.  The danger of the advertisements, however, rests with their unwillingness to acknowledge what exactly donation entails.  Presented in a no-strings-attached manner, the advertisements encourage males to think of themselves as donors rather than fathers.  When marketing to female egg donors, the advertisements make no reference to potentially serious medical complications donors may experience.

Tichenor challenged students to consider the moral, legal, and economic issues revealed in the linguistic choices of the industry.

“In representing itself to the public, the fertility industry frequently utilizes a language of altruism, describing gamete providers as egg and sperm ‘donors’ and surrogate mothers, as providers of the ‘gift of life,’” she noted.  “Given donors and surrogates receive significant financial compensation and the industry is a multi-billion dollar industry, how does this language distort and misrepresent practices?”

The final part of the seminar focused on the issue of reproductive tourism, a phenomenon in which individuals travel to other nations to obtain medical procedures illegal in their home country.  Highlighting both the legal and moral ramifications of reproductive tourism, Tichenor raised the issues of gestational surrogacy in very poor countries.

Often labeled as “wombs for rent,” this form of surrogacy is highly exploitative when utilized in third-world countries where potential “carriers” have few legal protections.  These women may be promised lucrative payments that they never receive.  The lack of regulation also means that clinics have no obligation to provide medical care for the women after the child is delivered.

The informational seminar concluded on the note that caution must be exercised regarding the development and regulation of reproductive technologies, with participants agreeing that morality cannot be excluded from the debate, lest our technologies advance in the name of progress for progress’ sake.

Kate Hardiman is a sophomore majoring in the Program of Liberal Studies and minoring in political science, economics, and philosophy (PPE).  Contact her at khardima@nd.edu.