When Baby-Making Moves From the Bedroom to the Laboratory

The old-fashioned way is on its way out.

<a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-407331871/stock-photo-young-offended-couple-lying-back-to-back-in-bed.html?src=95oPtyvLLi17LzIZYOwitg-1-77">Piotr Marcinski</a>/Shutterstock


The future of baby-making is not in a bed, or in the back seat of a car. It’s in a lab. So says Stanford Law Professor Hank Greely, an expert on the intersection of ethical, legal, and social issues in the biosciences.

On the latest episode of the Inquiring Minds podcast, Greely talks with Kishore Hari about the technology and ethics of embryo selection and a brave new world in which embryos are created from skin cells. While the idea of conceiving a child in a clinic may seem “deeply unromantic,” as Hari points out, Greely says it could have immense benefits. His book on the subject, The End of Sex and the Future of Human Reproduction, is out now.

In the not-too-distant future, parents will be able to see a selection of embryos and pick the one they want based on its genetic traits, Greely says. This ability could eliminate the possibility that a baby will be born with a terminal disease such as Tay-Sachs, which destroys brain function and leads to death in childhood. The technology, he says, will also reduce costs by saving health care systems money that would be spent treating these genetic diseases. According to Greely, this future is only 20 to 40 years away. You can listen to the fascinating interview below:

Of course, the widespread creation of custom laboratory babies will have profound philosophical consequences as well. Greely points out that the United States is an “unusual and fascinating country” in that it has a strong anti-abortion movement and “the least-regulated assisted reproductive industry in the world.” But objectors will no doubt exist, even if they are in the minority. Greely predicts that opponents of embryo selection “will not be easily pigeonholed” based on political views. They could come from both sides of the aisle.

The ethical questions go far beyond whether it is appropriate to choose embryos that are less likely to develop breast cancer or Alzheimer’s. Different states and countries might develop highly nuanced regulations—for example, allowing embryo selection to prevent diseases, but not to choose eye color, gender, or IQ, says Greely.

There will be other consequences, too. Greely cautions that having the ability to choose an embryo based on certain genetic traits “will make life more difficult in a sense,” because it will leave parents with more decisions to make. Do they want a child with musical ability? A child that’s at a higher risk for one disease, such as schizophrenia, but at a lower risk for another, such as diabetes?

Nevertheless, Greely believes embryo selection will become popular in the United States. “My guess is more than half of babies are likely to be conceived this way,” he predicts.

After all, he says, “You want to get the best car. Why don’t you want to get the best baby?”

Inquiring Minds is a podcast hosted by neuroscientist and musician Indre Viskontas and Kishore Hari, the director of the Bay Area Science Festival. To catch future shows right when they are released, subscribe to Inquiring Minds via iTunes or RSS. You can follow the show on Twitter at @inquiringshow and like us on Facebook.

More Mother Jones reporting on Climate Desk

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate