Advertisement

Frankenstein and the Question of Children’s Rights After Human Germline Genetic Modification

  • Eileen Hunt Botting
Conference paper

Abstract

Prominent critics and skeptics of genetic engineering have treated the ethical issue of human germline genetic modification (HGGM) as if it were still science fiction, like the artificially made Creature imagined in Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel Frankenstein. After surveying the history of making genetically modified (GM) children through three-person IVF since the late 1990s, I sketch a framework for a normative political theory of the rights of the GM children made from heritable biotechnological interventions in the human genome. In light of the history and trajectory of HGGM, the preeminent hard question is no longer “Should science genetically engineer children?” An equally difficult question is “What are the rights of the GM child?” The source of all speculative fiction, Frankenstein presciently addresses the latter question by having the Creature articulate a child’s fundamental and universal rights to both parental love and nondiscrimination, regardless of reproductive circumstances or genetic features.

Keywords

Frankenstein Children’s rights Genetic engineering Three-person IVF CRISPR-Cas9 

References

  1. Barritt JA, et al. Mitochondria in human offspring derived from ooplasmic transplantation: brief communication. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(3):513–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Baylis F. The ethics of creating children with three genetic parents. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;26:531–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Baylis F, Robert JS. Part-human chimeras; worrying the facts, probing the ethics. Am J Bioeth. 2007;7(5):41–58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Botting EH. Mary Shelley and the rights of the child: political philosophy in Frankenstein. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press; 2017.Google Scholar
  5. Bowlby J. Attachment. 2nd ed. New York: Basic Books; [1969] 1982.Google Scholar
  6. Brem SK, Anijar KZ. The bioethics of fiction: the chimera in film and print. Am J Bioeth. 2003;3(3):22–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Callaway E. U.K. scientists gain license to edit genes in human embryos. Nature. 2016;530:7588.Google Scholar
  8. Castle S. Britain set to approve technique to create babies from 3 people. The New York Times, 3 Feb; 2015.Google Scholar
  9. Chan S. Editorial: more than cautionary tales: the role of fiction in bioethics. J Med Ethics. 2009;35(7):398–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen J, et al. Birth of infant after transfer of anucleate donor oocyte cytoplasm into recipient eggs. Lancet. 1997;350(9072):186–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Darnovsky M. Humans have a right to be born without genetic manipulation. In: Merino N, editor. Human genetics. Farmington Hills: Greenhaven Press; 2010.Google Scholar
  12. Davies H. Can Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein be read as an early research ethics text? Med Humanit. 2004;30(1):32–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Dominy NJ, Yeakel JD. Frankenstein and the horrors of competitive exclusion. BioScience. 2017;67(2):107–10.Google Scholar
  14. EEOC (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. 2008. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/gina.cfm. Accessed 18 Apr 2017.
  15. Fukuyama F. Our posthuman future: consequences of the biotechnology revolution. New York: Picador; 2002.Google Scholar
  16. Greely HT. The end of sex and the future of reproduction. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2016.Google Scholar
  17. Gross AJ. Comment—Dr. Frankenstein, or: how I learned to stop worrying and love CRISPR-Cas9. Jurimetrics J. 2016;56:413–47.Google Scholar
  18. Habermas J. The future of human nature. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2003.Google Scholar
  19. Haraway D. Staying with the trouble: making kin in the Chthulucene. Durham: Duke University Press; 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harrison G, Gannon WL. Victor Frankenstein’s institutional review board proposal, 1790. Sci Eng Ethics. 2015;21(5):1139–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Jonsen AR. Frankenstein and the birth of medical ethics. In: Colt H, Quadrelli S, Lester F, editors. The picture of health: medical ethics and the movies. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011.Google Scholar
  22. Kirkey S. Toronto fertility clinic offers controversial egg treatment for women that can extend child-bearing years. National Post, 30 Jan; 2015.Google Scholar
  23. Knoepfler P. GMO sapiens: the life-changing science of designer babies. London: World Scientific; 2016.Google Scholar
  24. Liao SM. The right to be loved. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ma H, et al. Correction of a pathogenic gene mutation in human embryos. Nature. 2017;548:413–9.Google Scholar
  26. Mason MA, Ekman T. Babies of technology: assisted reproduction and the rights of the child. New Haven: Yale University Press; 2017.Google Scholar
  27. Mehlman M. Transhumanist dreams and dystopian nightmares: the promise and peril of genetic engineering. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins; 2010.Google Scholar
  28. Mellor AK. Mary Shelley: her life, her fiction, her monsters. New York: Routledge; 1988.Google Scholar
  29. Miah A. Genetically modified athletes: biomedical ethics, gene doping, and sport. London: Routledge; 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mitalipov S, Wolf DP. Clinical and ethical implications of mitochondrial gene transfer. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2014;25(1):5–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Moss L. “A science of uncertainty”: bioethics, narrative competence, and turning to the “what if” of fiction. Stud Can Lit/Études en littérature canadienne. 2015;40:2. https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/SCL/article/view/24546. Accessed 19 Apr 2017.Google Scholar
  32. Palacios-González C. Mitochondrial replacement techniques: egg donation, genealogy, and eugenics. Monash Bioeth Rev. 2016;34:37–51.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. PCB (President’s Council on Bioethics). Session 2: science and the pursuit of perfection. Discussion of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s ‘The Birth-Mark.’ 2002. https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcbe/transcripts/jan02/jan17session2.html. Accessed 26 Apr 2017.
  34. Pham N. Choice vs. chance: the constitutional case for regulating human germline genetic modification. Hastings Const Law Q. 2006;34(1):133–59.Google Scholar
  35. Phillips A. The politics of the human. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pritchard C. The girl with three biological parents. BBC Radio 4 Magazine, 1 Sept; 2014.Google Scholar
  37. Regalado A. Engineering the perfect baby. MIT Technology Review, 5 Mar; 2015. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/535661/engineering-the-perfect-baby/. Accessed 18 Apr 2017.
  38. Roberts M. IVF: first three-parent baby born to infertile couple. BBC News Health, 18 Jan; 2017.Google Scholar
  39. Sample I. World’s first baby born from new procedure using DNA of three people. The Guardian, 27 Sept; 2016.Google Scholar
  40. Sandel M. The case against perfection: ethics in the age of genetic engineering. Cambridge: Belknap Press; 2007.Google Scholar
  41. Shelley M. In: Hunter PJ, editor. Frankenstein. 2nd ed. New York: Norton; 2012.Google Scholar
  42. Smolensky KR. Parental tort liability for direct preimplantation genetic interventions: technological harms, the social model of disability, and questions of identity. Hastings Law J. 2008;60, Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 08–27.Google Scholar
  43. Swirski P. Of literature and knowledge: explorations in narrative thought experiments, evolution, and game theory. London: Routledge; 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. United Nations. Convention on the Rights of the Child. 1989. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx. Accessed 19 Apr 2017.
  45. Weintraub K. Three biological parents and a baby. The New York Times, 16 Dec; 2013.Google Scholar
  46. Wu J, et al. Interspecies chimerism with mammalian pluripotent stem cells. Cell. 2017;168:473–86.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Zhang J, et al. Pregnancy derived from human nuclear transfer. Fertil Steril. 2003;80(3):56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zhang J, et al. Live birth derived from oocyte spindle transfer to prevent mitochondrial disease. Reprod Biomed Online. 2017;34(4):361–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Notre DameNotre DameUSA

Personalised recommendations