Home > Journals > High Tech > Vol. 40 (2024) > Iss. 3 (2024)
Abstract
This Article compares human reproductive cloning (HRC) and heritable genome editing (HGE) to identify factors that encourage bans on novel reproductive technologies. HRC drew legislative opposition in part because it involved asexual reproduction and was incorrectly associated with copying. HGE and other technologies that involve sexual reproduction do not have those problematic qualities. HRC also became entangled with research in which human embryos were cloned to be harvested for their stem cells. HGE did not because scientists learned how to create and edit pluripotent stem cells without creating embryos. However, the legal history of HRC predicts that reproductive technologies strongly associated with embryo destruction will face fierce opposition. Targets for future prohibition may include: pronuclear transfer, a subtype of mitochondrial replacement therapy in which two fertilized eggs are destroyed to reconstruct one; and in vitro gametogenesis, a futuristic process in which couples create hundreds of embryos while discarding the vast majority based on their genetic profiles.
HGE has not been banned, in part because an appropriations rider has prevented the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from authorizing clinical trials. If the rider were amended to permit consideration of applications to correct mutations that cause serious monogenic diseases, this Article predicts that legislators would not enact bans. However, if genetic enhancements became feasible in the future, difficult policy issues, including impacts on future generations, would arise. Rather than debate these issues, Congress might keep the rider in place, thereby obviating the need for bans on HGE for enhancement.
Recommended Citation
Macintosh, Kerry Lynn,
HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE CLONING, HERITABLE GENOME EDITING, AND THE FUTURE OF NOVEL REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES,
40 Santa Clara High Tech. L.J. 267
(2024).
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/chtlj/vol40/iss3/1