THE patent system is meant to help inventors protect their ideas, but it can also be exploited for political ends. Take the decision by Greg Aharonian, an outspoken patent analyst based in San Francisco, to apply for 鈥�. His aim is to promote 鈥渟ame-sex reproduction鈥�, something he claims biologists have long failed to address (see 鈥淪perm from women and eggs from men鈥�).
Aharonian seems to be spoiling for a fight with conservatives. He may also be accused of recklessly raising the hopes of gay and lesbian couples that they might one day become biological parents. On one point at least there should be no argument: since scientists are trying to coax male stem cells to grow into eggs, and female stem cells into sperm, it is high time we debated these issues.
Safety is a major concern, especially given the biological manipulations involved. The prospect only reinforces the folly of the US government鈥檚 failure to regulate private fertility clinics, which are free to try any technique that rolls out of the lab. In the UK, meanwhile, the law that governs the operation of fertility clinics is being revised. Support is growing for an amendment that would permit IVF with sperm and cells grown in the lab 鈥� if the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) decides they are safe. That is a sensible approach. But the proposed amendment excludes the use of female sperm and male eggs, outlawing same-sex reproduction and discriminating against gays and lesbians.
Advertisement
Clearly this is inconsistent. If the HFEA is deemed fit to decide whether lab-grown sperm and eggs are safe for heterosexual couples, why can鈥檛 it determine whether female sperm and male eggs pose additional risks? Those pushing the amendment believe the fudge is necessary to win the support of social conservatives. Does that then mean there are reasons other than safety to worry about with the new reproductive methods?
On one level this debate has already been settled. In many countries lesbian couples can conceive children using donor sperm, and male couples can enlist the help of a surrogate mother to carry an embryo fertilised using the sperm of one partner. Still, new technologies bring new fears, even if they lead to similar ends, and the idea of creating male eggs and female sperm is bound to set alarm bells ringing for some.
Such fears are largely irrational, but it is still important for people to air them. That is why it is a mistake for British parliamentarians to fudge the issue. Far better to have a full public debate on these new technologies now, when the law governing IVF in the UK is being revised in Parliament, than to effectively brush the issue of same-sex reproduction under the carpet.
