Reprogenetics and public policy: Reflections and recommendations

Reprogenetics: Law, Policy, and Ethical Issues

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 253-294

  Parens, Erik ^a   Knowles, Lori P ^b,c  

^a HASTINGS CENTER   (United States)

^b University of Alberta ^*

^c UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 64649095776     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (96)

1. Act Respecting Human Reproductive Technologies and Commercial Transactions Relating to Human Reproduction. 1997. Bill C-47. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Public Works and Government Services.
2. Act Respecting Assisted Human Reproductive Technologies and Related Research. 2002. Bill C-13, second reading October 9, 2002, reprinted as amended by the Standing Committee on Health as a working copy for the use of the House of Commons at Report Stage and as reported to the House on December 12, 2002. http://www.parl.gc. ca/37/21parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/c-13/c-13-1/ 90187BE.html.
3. American Society for Reproductive Medicine. 1998. Revised Minimum Standards for In Vitro Fertilization, Gamete Intrafallopian Transfer, and Related Procedures: A Practice Committee Report. http://www.asrm.org/media/ practice/revised.html.
4. -. 2000. Does Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI) Carry Inherent Genetic Risks? Birmingham, AL: American Society for Reproductive Medicine.
5. -. 2002. 2002 Guidelines for Gamete and Embryo Donation: A Practice Committee Report: Guidelines and Minimum Standards. Fertility and Sterility 77, no. 6, suppl. 5.
6. Andre, J. 1995. Blocked exchanges: A taxonomy. In Pluralism, Justice and Equality, ed. D. Miller and M. Walzer, 171-97. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7. Andrews, L. 1999. The Clone Age: Adventures in the New World of Reproductive Technology. New York: Henry Holt.
8. Annas, G. 1998. The Shadowlands: Secrets, lies, and assisted reproduction. New England Journal of Medicine 339:935-39.
9. Annas, G J., L. B. Andrews, and R. M. Isasi. 2002. Protecting the endangered human: Toward an international treaty prohibiting cloning and inheritable alterations. American Journal of Law & Medicine 28:151-78.
10. Arneson, R. J. 1992. Commodification and commercial surrogacy. Philosophy and Public Affairs 21, no. 2:132-64.
11. Aronson, D. D., and K. M. Zieselman. 1996. A consensus for regulation? Fertility and Sterility 66:862-63.
12. Arrow, K. J. 1972. Gifts and exchanges. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1:343-62.
13. Austin, K. 2001. New germline-changing IVF procedure could easily have transferred severe disease. BioMedNet News, May 17. http://news.bmn. com/report.
14. Barritt, J. A., C. A. Brenner, H. E. Malter, and J. Cohen. 2001. Mitochondria in human offspring derived from ooplasmic transplantation. Human Reproduction 16:513-16.
15. Barritt, J. A., C. A. Brenner, S. Willadsen, and J. Cohen. 2000. Spontaneous and artificial changes in human ooplasmic mitochondria. Human Reproduction 15(spec. suppl. 2):207-17.
16. Barritt, J. A., S. Willadsen, C. Brenner, and J. Cohen. 2001. Epigenetic and experimental modifications in early mammalian development: Part II. Cytoplasmic transfer in assisted reproduction. Human Reproduction Update 7:428-35.
17. Belkin, L. 2001. The made-to-order savior. New York Times Magazine, July 1.
18. Blankley, T. 2000. The fountain of youth? Moral dilemmas of embryo research. Washington Times, April 26.
19. Blumenthal, D., M. Causino, E. Campbell, and K. S. Louis. 1996. Relationships between academic institutions and industry in the life sciences: An industry survey. New England Journal of Medicine 334:368-73.
20. Bonnicksen, A. 1998. Transplanting nuclei between human eggs: Implications for germline genetics. Politics and the Life Sciences 17:3-10.
21. -. 2002. Crafting a Cloning Policy: From Dolly to Stem Cells. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
22. Buchanan, A., D. Brock, N. Daniels, and D. Wikler. 2000. From Chance to Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23. Calabresi, G., and P. Bobbitt. 1978. Tragic Choices. New York: W W Norton & Co.
24. Chief Medical Office's Expert Group. 2000. Stem Cell Research: Medical Progress with Responsibility. A Report from the Chief Medical Officer's Expert Group Reviewing the Potential of Developments in Stem Cell Research and Cell Nuclear Replacement to Benefit Human Health. London: Department of Health, August 16.
25. Cohen, C. 1997. Unmanaged care: The need to regulate new reproductive technologies in the United States. Bioethics 11, no. 3-4:348-65.
26. Cohen, J., R. Scott, M. Alikani, T. Schimmel, S. Munne, J. Levron, and L. Wu. 1998. Ooplasmic transfer in mature human oocytes. Molecular Human Reproduction 4:269-80.
27. Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology. 1984. Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology. London: HMSO.
28. Connor S. 1995. Marleau right to be cautious on reproductive technologies. Toronto Star, August 4.
29. Daniels, K. R., E. Blythe, D. Hall, and K. M. Hanson. The best interests of the child in assisted human reproduction: The interplay between the state, professionals, and parents. Politics and the Life Sciences 19:33-44.
30. Deech, R. 2000. Assisted reproductive techniques and the law. Medico-Legal Journal 69, pt. 1:13-24.
31. Food and Drug Administration. 2002. CBER hearings. May 9-10. www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/cber02.htm.
32. Frankel, M. S., and A. R. Chapman. 2002. Human Inheritable Modifications: Assessing Scientific, Ethical, Religious, and Policy Issues. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
33. Frase-Blunt, M. 2001. Ova-compensating? Women who donate eggs to infertile couples earn a reward-but pay a price. Washington Post, December 4.
34. Fugger, E. F., S. H. Black, K. Keyvanfar, and J. D. Schulman. 1998. Births of normal daughters after MicroSort sperm separation and intrauterine insemination, in-vitro fertilization, or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Human Reproduction 13:2367-70.
35. Gordon, J. W 1999. Genetic enhancement in humans. Science 283:2023-24.
36. Green, R. M. 2001. The Human Embryo Research Debates: Bioethics in the Vortex of Controversy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
37. Hansen, M., J. J. Kurinczuk, C. Bower, and S. Webb. 2002. The risk of major birth defects after intracytoplasmic sperm injection and in vitro fertilization. New England Journal of Medicine 346:725-30.
38. Harris, J. 1992. Wonderwoman and Superman: The Ethics of Human Biotechnology. New York: Oxford University Press.
39. Health Research Extension Act. 1985. PL. 99-158.
40. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. 1990. United Kingdom (c. 37).
41. Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Research Purposes) Regulations. 2001. Statutory Instrument no. 188.
42. Human Genetics Advisory Committee and Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. 1998. Cloning Issues in Reproduction, Science and Medicine. www.doh.gov. uk/hgac/papers/paperd1.htm.
43. Institute for Science, Law, and Technology Working Group. 1998. ART into science: Regulation of fertility techniques. Science 281:651-52.
44. Jones, H. 1996. The time has come. Fertility and Sterility 66:1092.
45. Juengst, E., and E. Parens. 2003. Germ-line dancing: Definitional considerations for policy makers. In Human Genetic Modifications across Generations: Scientific, Ethical, Religious and Policy Issues, ed. A. Chapman and M. Frankel, 20-36. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
46. Knowles, L. P. 1999. Property, patents and progeny: Selling our selves. Hastings Center Report 29, no. 2:38-40.
47. -. 2000. International Perspectives on Human Embryo and Fetal Tissue Research. Background Paper for Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research, H1-H22. Rockville, MD: National Bioethics Advisory Commission, January.
48. -. 2006. State-sponsored human stem cell research: Regulatory approaches and standard setting. In States and Stem Cells: Policy and Economic Implications of State-Sponsored Stem Cell Research, ed. A. D. Levine, 75-111. Princeton, NJ: Policy Research Institute for the Region.
49. Lefer, D. 1999. An ad for smart eggs spawns ethics uproar. Daily News (New York), March 7.
50. Little, M. O. 1998. Surgery, suspect norms, and the ethics of complicity. In Enhancing Human Traits: Ethical and Social Implications, ed. E. Parens, 162-76. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
51. Loiseau, G. 2000. Typologie des choses hors du commerce juridique RTD civ (1, Janvier-Mars): 47.
52. Macklin, R. 1996. What is wrong with commidification? In New Ways of Making Babies: The Case of Egg Donation, ed. C. Cohen. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
53. Masood, E. 1999. Expert group to look at UK cloning law. Nature 400:4.
54. Mehlman, M. J., and J. R. Botkin. 1998. Access to the Genome: The Challenge to Equality. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
55. MicroSort. Web site. www.microsort.com/results.html (accessed July 2006).
56. Murray, T. H. 1987. Gifts of the body and the needs of strangers. Hastings Center Report 17, no. 2:30-38.
57. -. 1995. Organ vendors, families, and the gift of life. In Organ Transplantation: The Human and Cultural Context, ed. S. J. Youngner, R. Fox, and L. J. O'Connell, 101-25. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
58. -. 1996. The Worth of a Child. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
59. National Academy of Sciences. 2002. Scientific and Medical Aspects of Human Reproductive Cloning. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
60. National Advisory Board on Ethics in Reproduction. 1996. Report and recommendations on oocyte donation by the National Advisory Board on Ethics in Reproduction (NABER). In New Ways of Making Babies: The Case of Egg Donation, ed. C. Cohen, 237-93. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
61. National Bioethics Advisory Commission. 1999. Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research. Rockville, MD: National Bioethics Advisory Commission.
62. -. 2001. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Vol. 1 of Ethical and Policy Issues in Research Involving Human Participants. Bethesda, MD: National Bioethics Advisory Commission.
63. National Conference of State Legislatures. 2001. Genetics Policy Report: Reproductive Technologies. Washington, DC: National Conference of State Legislatures.
64. National Institutes of Health. 1986. NIH Guidelines For Research involving Recombinant DNA Molecules. Section I-B. Definition of Recombinant DNA Molecules. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health.
65. -. 1994. Report of the Human Embryo Research Panel. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health.
66. -. 1996. NIH proposal to abolish Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee. BioLaw 11, no. 10: U.225-31.
67. New York State Task Force on Life and the Law. 1998. Assisted Reproductive Technologies: Analysis and Recommendations for Public Policy. New York: New York State Task Force on Life and the Law.
68. NIH Reauthorization Act. 1993. 45 CFR 46. 201-207.
69. NIH Revitalization Act. 1993. PL. 103-43.
70. Palmer, J. G, and R. Cook-Deegan. 2003. National policies to oversee inheritable genetic modifications research. In Designing Our Descendants: The Promises and Perils of Genetic Modifications, ed. A. R. Chapman and M. S. Frankel, 275-95. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
71. Pinker, S. 2003. Better babies? Why genetic enhancement is too unlikely to worry about. Boston Globe, June 1.
72. Powell, K. 2002. Seeds of doubt. Nature 422:656-58.
73. President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. 1982. Splicing Life: A Report on the Social and Ethical Issues of Genetic Engineering with Human Beings. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
74. President's Council on Bioethics. 2002. Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry. Washington, DC: President's Council on Bioethics.
75. Rabb, H. 1999. Memo from Harriet Rabb to Harold Varmus. In statement of Harold Var-mus, M. D., Director, National Institutes of Health, before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies, January 26. http://freedom.house.gov/library/ technology/stemcell.asp.
76. Radin, M. J. 1987. Market inalienability. Harvard Law Review 100:1849-1937.
77. Resnik, D. B., H. B. Steinkraus, and P. J. Langer. 1999. Human Germline Gene Therapy: Scientific, Moral, and Political Issues. Austin, TX: R. G. Landes.
78. Robertson, J. A. 1994. Children of Choice: Freedom and the New Reproductive Technologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
79. -. 1995. Symbolic issues in embryo research. Hastings Center Report 25, no. 1:37-38.
80. Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. Proceed with Care: The Final Report of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. Ottawa: Canadian Government Publishing, 1993.
81. Satz, D. 1992. Markets in women's reproductive labor. Philosophy and Public Affairs 21, no. 2:107-31.
82. Shanley, M. L. 2001. Making Babies, Making Families. Boston: Beacon Press.
83. Shapiro, H. 1999. Reflections on the interface of bioethics, public policy, and science. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 9, no. 3:209-24.
84. Silver, L. 1997. Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World. New York: Avon.
85. Steinbock, B. 2002. Sex selection: Not obviously wrong. Hastings Center Report 32, no. 1:23-28.
86. Stempsey, W E. 1996. Paying people to give up their organs: Theproblem with com-modification of body parts. Medical Humanities Review 10, no. 2:45-55.
87. Tang, Y.-P, E. Shimizu, G. R. Dube, C. Rampon, G. A. Kerchner, and M. Zhuo. 1999. Genetic enhancement of learning and memory in mice. Nature 401:63-69.
88. Templeton, A. 2002. Ooplasmic transfer: Proceed with care. New England Journal of Medicine 346:773-75.
89. Turner, R. C. 1998. Do means matter? In Enhancing Human Traits: Ethical and Social Implications, ed. E. Parens, 151-61. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
90. Verlinsky, Y, S. Retchitsky, W. Schoolcraft, C. Strom, and A. Kuliev. 2001. Preimplan-tation diagnosis for Fanconi anemia combined with HLC matching. Journal of the American Medical Association 285:3130-33.
91. Walters, L. 2003. Research cloning, ethics, and public policy (letter). Science 299:1661.
92. Walters, L., and J. G. Palmer. 1997. The Ethics of Human Gene Therapy. New York: Oxford University Press.
93. Weiss, R. 2003. Scientists replace stem cell genes. Washington Post, February 10.
94. Wertheimer, A. 1987. Coercion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
95. Zoon, K. 2001. Letter to Sponsors/Researchers-Human Cells Used in Therapy Involving the Transfer of Genetic Material by Means Other Than the Union of Gamete Nuclei. Washington, DC: U. S. Food and Drug Administration, July 6. www.fda.gov/cber/ltr/cytotrans070601.htm.
96. Zwaka, T. P., and J. A. Thomson. 2003. Homologous recombination in human embryonic stem cells. Nature Biotechnology, February 10. doi:10.1038/nbt788.