CRIES of horror and disgust greeted several of the experiments showcased at last week鈥檚 international conference on reproductive science in Madrid (see 鈥淏rave new treatments鈥�). And it has to be said that some of the science is hard to defend.
Take the furore over attempts to create chimeric human embryos in the lab. The stated rationale for the experiments is that injecting genetically defective embryos with healthy cells of a different genetic make-up might prove an effective a treatment for inherited diseases. But many scientists see this as far-fetched; and even if it isn鈥檛, why experiment on human embryos when animal embryos could provide much of the information?
It is also hard to support the controversial efforts of an Israeli team to grow eggs for IVF from the ovaries of aborted fetuses. Some claim that vetoing such research is illogical if we permit doctors to abort fetuses in the first place. But this defence only works if you believe it really is no big deal to bring children into the world whose biological mothers were aborted fetuses. And it has been plain for years that most people do think it is a big deal. What is more, they are right to.
Advertisement
The research is being pursued out of sheer frustration. Despite years of effort, scientists have still not discovered how to grow to maturity eggs from adult ovarian tissue, which means there remains a serious shortage of human eggs for donation. Kudos and money will go to the team that solves this problem. So what exactly is the basis for saying fetal eggs could never be part of the answer?
Some have suggested the fundamental problem is the fetus鈥檚 inability to give consent. If so, then it follows that it is wrong to carry out any research using fetal tissues. But many countries allow such research. Even the highly regulated UK has no statutary provisions restricting the use of fetal tissues. Its laws cover only embryos and do not ban the kind of research done in Israel. Indeed, UK ethics committees have even permitted scientists to use fetal tissue to treat Parkinson鈥檚 disease. Making consent an issue with fetal eggs but not fetal nerve cells is inconsistent.
But there is one special difficulty with fetal eggs. The impact on a chiId of knowing that their biological mother was never born seems so incalculable that it is hard to see how objections based on this risk could be overcome. Womb transplants, another issue from Madrid that sparked controversy, have no equivalent moral problem. A Swedish team reported giving mice womb transplants that worked so well the animals produced live young. And while some commentators turned it into another Frankenstein story of out-of-control science, this is unfair.
Some worry about women using the womb they were born in to give birth to their own children. But is that so wrong? If it is OK for a mother to pass on a kidney to a daughter, how can we object to her passing on a womb she no longer needs? Some critics say womb transplants could never work in humans, and condemn the research for raising false hopes. Their forerunners once said the same about IVF.
Others believe it is unethical to subject people whose lives are not at stake to transplant surgery and immunosuppressive drugs. It is always important to weigh the risks against the benefits of any invasive medical procedure, and if womb transplants ever became a realistic option they would be no exception. But medicine鈥檚 ability to prevent rejection with drugs is improving, and recent years have seen patients accept such risks for a new hand, larynx, femur or knee. It would be wrong to say wombs should never be added to the list because of vague fears of this being unnatural. Nor because it might eventually enable men to give birth. If this is a concern, simply make it illegal to perform the operation on men.
More research will be needed. One experimental womb transplant has already failed and experts still don鈥檛 know for sure how best to supply the womb with blood. But the operation need not lead to lifelong immune suppression. The recipient can have the womb removed once her family is complete.
There is an argument that women who need such surgery to have a chance of giving birth would be better off considering adoption or fostering. Maybe some would be. But the same could be said of couples who subject themselves to the expense 鈥� and often heartache 鈥� of IVF. We have learned to accept these treatments for infertility. In time we may learn to accept womb transplants too.