James Watson, a Nobel Prize-winning co-discussor of the DNA double helix, remarked in 1974, “All hell is unleashed politically and morally around the globe” regarding the potential of human in vitro fertilization.
Today, more than 12 million individuals are expecting through IVF, and the world seems relatively calm. Many of us may not have fully grasped this procedure.
Yet, what about our perceptions of future reproductive technologies? This question is sparked by the recent birth of a fertile mouse with two genetic fathers. While similar experiments have previously led to the creation of both motherless and fatherless mice, this new method is notable as it does not involve genetic alterations. Typically, this could also be applicable for human use.
Various obstacles, including low success rates and the removal of DNA from numerous human eggs, explain why such advancements aren’t imminent. Nonetheless, it is essential to begin contemplating the societal implications.
For some, the notion of a child having two genetic fathers may never be accepted, just as there remains criticism towards gay couples expanding their families. Changing such perspectives may prove challenging, if not impossible.
Like IVF, what used to be front-page news could eventually become routine.
However, one can expect a broader public to exhibit a strict moral opposition to this idea, along with a general sense of unease. The inaugural child born from this method is, in many ways, distinct from all previous human beings. IVF-born children come into existence through a process unimaginable to our ancestors but continue to carry the genetic lineage from one male and one female ancestor.
Is this significant? Just like IVF, what was once front-page news may soon be commonplace. In a time when reproductive and trans rights are being restricted in the U.S., engaging in objective discourse about emerging technologies presents a greater challenge. Fortunately, these questions do not require immediate answers.
topic:
Source: www.newscientist.com
