Reproduction and Responsibility:
The Regulation of New Biotechnologies
The President's Council on Bioethics
Washington, D.C.
March 2004 www.bioethics.gov
Chapter Eight Findings
In this chapter, we enumerate the key findings growing out
of our survey and analysis of the current regulation of biotechnologies
that touch on human reproduction. Clearly, many human goods
are well served by the current regulatory arrangements. Yet
other goods are unmonitored or unprotected and may require
further attention. Each of the findings listed below has been
identified by a significant number of Council members as a
matter of concern or at any rate worthy of note. The listing
of findings here is not intended to imply that anything in
particular, or indeed anything at all, is required by way
of public policy response.
I. DOMAIN OF INQUIRY
The fields of assisted reproduction, human genetics, and
embryo research are increasingly converging with one another.
The integration of genomic knowledge with the practices of
assisted reproduction is no longer speculative. Techniques
and practices such as preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD)
are already enhancing our control over human procreation,
making it possible to screen and select specific genetic characteristics
of our offspring.
II. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
There is no uniform, comprehensive, and enforceable system
of data collection, monitoring, or oversight for the biotechnologies
affecting human reproduction. The present system is a
patchwork of federal, state, and professional self-regulation.
A. Assisted Reproduction 1.
Institutional Governance.
a. Governmental oversight. There is minimal
direct governmental regulation of the practice of assisted
reproduction. The primary animating values of current
federal regulation are (1) consumer protection and (2) safety
and efficacy of products when employed for their intended
use. In the main, assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs)
are regulated as the practice of medicine-with licensure,
certification, professional oversight, and malpractice litigation
as the chief means of regulation. Under this system, the
children who will be born with the aid of these technologies
are not technically considered patients, and parents are
left solely responsible for safeguarding the interests of
their children (though of course ART practitioners aim to
help parents conceive healthy children). On the federal
level, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), acting pursuant
to the Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act,
collects and publishes some data on the practice of assisted
reproduction at clinics in the United States; most of this
information relates to the clinics' per-cycle success rates
of initiating pregnancies and achieving live births. The
CDC also provides a model certification program for embryo
laboratories, although to date no states have adopted it.
The federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates
some of the products used in the practice of assisted reproduction,
although this oversight is limited to insuring the safety
and efficacy of a product in its intended use. Several experimental
ARTs (for example, ICSI [intracytoplasmic sperm injection]
and PGD) have entered clinical practice with limited prior
testing and limited monitoring of their effects on the children
produced with their aid. At the same time, there is at least
one instance of the FDA asserting its authority to stop
an experimental new technique (ooplasm transfer), the safety
of which, for the resulting child, had been called into
question. But the legal justification for doing so was not
the protection of the child, as such, since the FDA has
no explicit legal authority to regulate on such grounds.
b. Professional oversight. There is extensive
professional self-regulation of the practice of assisted
reproduction, but compliance with the standards invoked
is purely voluntary. The animating ethical values
of current professional self-regulation are safety, efficacy,
and privacy for the individuals seeking infertility services.
The standards are merely advisory, with no meaningful enforcement
mechanisms. The professional societies do address some broader
ethical issues-such as the permissibility of elective sex
selection and cloning-to- produce-children-and recommend
limiting or not engaging in certain practices. But these
recommendations are also merely advisory.
2. Substantive Areas of Concern.
a. The well-being of children, egg donors, and gestational
mothers. There is no comprehensive, uniform,
and enforceable mechanism for data collection, monitoring,
or oversight of how the new reproductive biotechnologies
affect the well-being of the children conceived with their
aid, the egg donors, or the gestational mothers. There
is no definitive understanding of how ART or its adjuncts
affect the well-being of children born with their aid. Some
studies suggest that most children are normal and healthy;
others raise serious concerns. No longitudinal controlled
study has yet been undertaken to follow the long-term health
and development of children born with the aid of ART. Multifetal
gestations are significantly more common in pregnancies
initiated with the help of ARTs as currently practiced;
such pregnancies are associated with a higher incidence
of serious health problems for both mothers and children.
Yet there are at present no requirements to publish adverse
health effects from the use of ARTs or their adjuncts.
b. Access to services and consumer protection.
There are no nationally uniform laws or policies relating
to access to assisted reproduction. State law relating
to insurance coverage of ART services varies greatly; fourteen
states have laws speaking to the question, the rest do not.i
The federal Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification
Act does not require the reporting of the average price
(to the patient) of a successful assisted pregnancy.
c. Movement of techniques and practices from experimental
to clinical use. Given the present framework
of regulation, novel technologies and practices that are
successful move from the experimental context to clinical
practice with relatively little oversight or deliberation.
Once in practice, these techniques are used at clinicians'
discretion, with little or no external oversight. Use of
effective technologies becomes widespread rapidly. Two
examples: (1) ICSI was discovered by accident in 1992. Two
years later it was in clinical practice. In 2001, ICSI was
used in 49 percent of in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment
cycles. (2) PGD was developed in 1989. Since then, an unknown
number of children have been born after undergoing PGD (estimates
range between less than 1,000 and 10,000). Yet there have
been no longitudinal studies of the effects of PGD on these
children. Current professional guidelines dictate only that
there be two peer-reviewed papers showing an acceptable
risk-benefit ratio before the status of a new practice is
elevated from "experimental" to "clinically acceptable."
There is no system for reporting the reasons for using ICSI,
PGD, and similar technologies. Nor is there any system for
publishing and disseminating information regarding possible
adverse effects.
d. Public discussion and deliberation regarding the
ethical significance of new technologies and practices.
In ART, as in other areas of medicine, there is no uniform
system for public review and deliberation regarding the
larger human or social significance of new reproductive
technologies. Practices combining assisted reproduction
with genomic knowledge have come into clinical usage with
little or no deliberation about their human, social, or
ethical implications. Such practices include using PGD to
screen and select genetic traits unrelated to the health
of the child who is to be born-such as elective sex selection
or compatibility with an older sibling in need of tissue
donation. As genomic knowledge increases, the range of non-disease-related
genetic traits for which PGD is feasible will potentially
expand. There is today no system for data collection on
the uses and applications of these or similar technologies.
B. Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis
PGD is an unregulated practice. There is
no system of data collection, monitoring, or oversight for
preimplantation genetic diagnosis per se, and no system for
reporting of possible adverse effects on children conceived
following the use of PGD. Nor is there a mechanism for the
collection of data regarding the frequency of specific applications
of PGD (for example, screening for disease, for non-disease-related
traits, or for the creation of compatible tissue donors).
C. Gene Transfer Research
Gene transfer research is regulated robustly. The
federal government regulates gene-transfer research in regard
to safety, efficacy, and protection of human subjects. Moreover,
there exists a long-standing system for public discussion
regarding novel protocols (through the Recombinant DNA Advisory
Committee of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), commonly
known as the RAC). But it is unclear whether this supervisory
system would suffice to encompass safeguards for the health
and well-being of children who might be conceived or born
using gene-transfer techniques. This is, at present, a remote
question, because the relevant techniques are for now entirely
speculative.
D. Use and Disposition of Human Embryos in Research
There is no comprehensive, uniform, and enforceable
mechanism for data collection, monitoring, or oversight regarding
the use and disposition of in vitro human embryos in the context
of clinical practice or research. A credible, recent
estimate suggests that there are 400,000 embryos in cryopreservation
in the United States. There are no federal limits or regulations
governing what one can do to or with an ex vivo human embryo,
so long as one is privately funded and so long as the embryos
are acquired in a legal manner. There is no uniform guidance
regarding the disposition of such frozen embryos, once their
progenitors no longer want them. There are no federal limits
on the creation of embryos solely for research, the creation
of cloned or hybrid embryos, the implantation of human embryos
into the bodies of animals, or the creation of embryos using
fetal gametes or gametes derived from embryonic stem cells.
Meanwhile, no federal funds may be used for research that
involves the destruction of human embryos, but the law has
been construed to permit federal funding of research on a
limited number of human embryonic stem cell lines. Many in
the research community believe that the current restrictions
on funding of embryo-derived stem cell research create a chilling
effect on embryo research generally.
E. Commerce
There is no comprehensive mechanism for regulation of
commerce in gametes, embryos, and ART services. Professional
guidelines exist that attempt to place limits on commerce
in human reproductive tissue and human embryos, primarily
in order to safeguard the health of women and the dignity
of gamete donors, but these guidelines are unenforced. Regarding
the sale of ART services generally, there are overall federal
guidelines relating to truth in advertising, and professional
societies have propounded guidelines on this matter as well.
Patenting of embryonic or fetal human organisms is prohibited
for the fiscal year 2004. The Weldon Amendment to the
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 provides that no funds
shall be made available "to issue patents on claims directed
to or encompassing a human organism." Until October 1, 2004,
no patents may be issued on human organisms at any stage of
development. Congress may continue this policy, or not, as
it sees fit. Additionally, it has for many years been the
policy of the Patent and Trademark Office not to issue patents
directed to or encompassing "human beings."
_________________
Footnote
i.
One published study concluded that in states where IVF is
covered by insurance, there are associated "decreases in the
number of embryos transferred per cycle, the percentages of
cycles resulting in pregnancy, and the percentage of pregnancies
with three or more fetuses." Jain, T., et al., "Insurance
Coverage and Outcomes of In Vitro Fertilization," New England
Journal of Medicine 347(9): 661 (August 29, 2002).
|