Reproduction and Responsibility:
The Regulation of New Biotechnologies
The President's Council on Bioethics
Washington, D.C.
March 2004
www.bioethics.gov
Chapter Seven
Diagnostic Survey: Summary and Conclusion
I. Summary
Chapters 2 through 6 describe in some detail the current
regulatory activities governing the uses of biotechnologies that touch
on human reproduction; this diagnostic survey reveals that the present
constellation of regulatory mechanisms is broad but not uniform or
systematic in its objectives, scope, or enforcement.
The practice of assisted reproduction is subject to oversight
by a host of sources, governmental and nongovernmental. Governmental
regulation is motivated by concerns for consumer protection, quality
assurance in laboratory procedures, safety and efficacy of products
according to their intended use, and the delivery of medical care
according to accepted standards of practice. Nongovernmental oversight
is aimed primarily at ensuring the satisfaction and privacy of those
who seek assisted reproductive technology (ART) services. These
standards, while extensive, are hortatory rather than compulsory.
What seem to be missing from both governmental and nongovernmental
regulations, individually or in the aggregate, are meaningful, enforceable
rules directly aimed at safeguarding the health and well-being of
the children who come to be born via ART.i
Moreover, there do not seem to be significant oversight activities
or effective guidelines that address larger ethical concerns relating
to the enhanced control over human procreation. Finally, the system
of regulation currently in place does not reflect the concerns many
people have about the use and destruction of human embryos attendant
on the practice of assisted reproduction.
New capacities to screen and select for specific genetic traits and
characteristics are not regulated as such through governmental
institutions. Insofar as they are regulated, they are governed by
state, local, or institution-based standards for the practice of
medicine or the conduct of embryo research. There do not seem to be any
governmental authorities or regulatory efforts to comprehensively
monitor the uses, applications, or long-term health effects of
preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) on children born after its use.
And there is no public oversight or public guidelines with respect to
the broader social and ethical implications of enhancing control of the
genetic characteristics of children. At the nongovernmental level,
there are guidelines that "strongly discourage" the use of PGD for
elective sex selection, but these guidelines are not binding and, in
fact, are not (at least as of this writing) followed by all of the
prominent practitioners of assisted reproduction. There are also no
guidelines regarding the permissibility of crossing the boundary
between using PGD for producing a disease-free child and using it for
so-called enhancement purposes or to produce siblings for children
needing transplant donors.
The ability to genetically modify gametes or human embryos, today
a merely speculative reproductive possibility, would likely
be regulated under the existing federal guidelines for gene-transfer
research. Current regulations in this regard include stringent
protections for human subjects and rigorous standards requiring
practitioners to demonstrate and document the safety and efficacy
of such gene-transfer procedures. Moreover, most (if not all)
such research is subject to federal guidelines that require
submission of prospective research protocols to a body that
publicly discusses the ethical implications of projects raising
novel or important issues. Officially, it is the safety of
the participants in clinical trials such research that drives
the federal regulation of genetic modification, but these
regulations seem also to be informed by a regard for as-yet-unconceived
future generations who may be affected (unintentionally) by
such germ-line genetic modification. That being said, there
is no positive authority that empowers the federal government
to consider the safety of such future individuals. The absence
of such authority might prove to be an obstacle to meaningful
regulation of germ-line gene-transfer, should it ever be undertaken.
At present, however, deliberate germ-line modification is
not now being pursued in humans, due to concerns for safety
and efficacy.
The use of in vitro human embryos for purposes of scientific research
is not regulated by the federal government. The federal government
neither promotes nor prohibits such research.ii
Regulation in the individual states varies widely, ranging from
active endorsement to silent permission to strict prohibition. There
is thus no uniformity in governmental regulation of embryo research.
The nongovernmental regulation of this practice takes the form of
ethical opinions and practice guidelines issued by professional
societies. Subject to certain limitations discussed in Chapter 5,
these authorities, in the main, endorse and promote such research
based on their view that the embryo's moral status permits its use
and destruction for certain scientific ends.
Commerce in gametes, embryos, and assisted reproductive services is
subject to only a small degree of regulation. There is very little
controlling law respecting the sale of gametes or embryos. Professional
societies provide detailed yet merely hortatory guidelines regarding
financial incentives and donor protections. The practice of assisted
reproduction itself is subject to external regulation for purposes of
consumer protection, particularly with regard to truth in advertising
and reporting the rates of success. Some states have laws concerning
the provision of insurance coverage for assisted reproductive services,
but the scope and substance of these laws vary widely. Professional
societies offer some guidance as to how to structure compensation and
some standards for truth in advertising. Regarding intellectual
property protections, the recently enacted Weldon Amendment (along with
the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's policy) precludes the issuance
of a patent directed to human organisms at any stage of development.
The Weldon Amendment expires at the end of fiscal year 2004 and would
have to be reauthorized if it is to have continuing effect.
II. Conclusion
Taken as a whole, the present system of regulation advances a
number of goods and values. It allows for the robust and innovative
practice of medicine, permitting physicians wide latitude to employ
novel approaches in their efforts to help patients overcome infertility
and experience the joys of parenthood. It promotes the safety and
efficacy of products for their intended uses and provides an extensive
system of protections for human subjects participating in clinical
trials. Scientists are generally permitted (though not generally
federally funded) to pursue most research relating to assisted reproduction
or involving harm to human embryos. In many cases, scientists can
secure patents to protect the fruits of their labors. The present
system accords prospective parents a great deal of freedom to choose
among a variety of approaches to assisted reproduction; it similarly
confers upon them maximum freedom to make choices on behalf of their
future children. Finally, present governance of commerce growing
out of reproductive biotechnologies is largely left to the market,
with all the attendant benefits of free enterprise and the freedom
to contract.
The weaknesses of the present system in some ways grow out
of its strengths. Practitioners and parents have such wide
latitude to pursue the benefits of the new reproductive biotechnologies
precisely because there are no governmental authorities or
professional bodies formally charged with ensuring the well-being
of children conceived and born with the aid of assisted reproduction.
Tort liability for harm to children in this context is a crude
(and, for the harmed children, necessarily after-the-fact)
substitute for formal and effective guidelines. As with their
treatment in other branches of medicine, protecting the interests
of children is primarily the responsibility of parents. As
we have seen, however, there are compelling reasons to believe
that assisted reproduction-especially in light of new and
emerging genetic technologies-raises unique ethical concerns
and perhaps deserves more careful social oversight. No governmental
bodies are today responsible for monitoring or assessing the
broader ethical implications of the new reproductive biotechnologies,
nor are there clear and accepted boundaries that would protect
human procreation from possibly unwelcome innovations and
degrading practices. Scientists in many states enjoy largely
unlimited freedom regarding what they can and cannot do with
human embryos in research because the current system of federal
regulation is silent, neither promoting such research nor
prohibiting it. Finally, as to commerce, the present regulatory
system lacks a uniform approach to questions of access to
reproductive services, and it sets no uniform, enforceable
limits on the buying and selling of human gametes and embryos.
_________________
Footnotes
i. It bears noting
that extant safeguards relating to quality assurance, safety,
and efficacy of products, etc., do bear indirectly on the health
and safety of children born with the aid of ART.
ii. One exception to
this neutrality is the federal funding for research involving a
limited number of embryonic stem cell lines derived before August
9, 2001. See the Council's report, Monitoring Stem Cell Research,
especially Chapter 2. (The President's Council on Bioethics, Monitoring
Stem Cell Research, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office,
2004, available at www.bioethics.gov.)