Doomed from the Womb: What Challenges Does In Vitro Eugenics Raise?

According to BioEdge, the Australian bioethicist Robert Sparrow of Monash University has published a provocative proposal exploring the scientific benefits and risks of what he calls “in vitro eugenics.” Through in vitro eugenics, it would be possible not only to create gametes for infertile individuals or couples, but also to breed many generations of human beings in the Petri dish with the aim of perfecting them. This would achieved by extracting certain stem cells from the initial embryos in order to use them to create new gametes in order to produce other embryos. Sparrow estimates that it might be possible to produce up to three generations of humans annually, meaning that up to thirty generations could be produced in a mere ten years. He does not deal with the moral implications of this idea at length, but he does not think that it raises any new ethical problems that have not been dealt with before.

I am, however, inclined to disagree with Sparrow on his last point, for it seems to me that in vitro eugenics does indeed raise unique moral problems insofar as it runs the risk of reducing certain generations of human beings as mere means to an end. Unlike standard procedures like in vitro fertilization, in which the child produced is desired by his or her parents, it is difficult to imagine that the intermediate generations of humans in between the initial and final, desired generation will not be viewed as genetically inferior if in vitro eugenics were permitted, and some might even wish to discard the intermediate generations while in they are in Petri dish upon fulfilling their "purpose," which is at least morally questionable. Moreover, there is something is very disturbing about the idea of extracting stem cells from embryos to produce gametes for fertilization, for it would make it possible for the children of one generation to be the parents of children of the following generation – all without any of them being born. And, if they are born, even more problems emerge. Since we currently do not know the psychological effects informing children that they were created as intermediaries for a future generation, in vitro eugenics threatens to pose serious psychological risks to the children it produces who learn of their origin.

Overall, then, Sparrow is, I think, too quick to conclude that no new moral problems would be raised. IF we are to take in vitro eugenics as a serious option, questions like these will inevitably appear and need to be answered.