Document Type
Article
Publication Date
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.
Automated Citation
40 Santa Clara High Tech. L.J. 267–301 (2024).