UC Davis Assistant Professor of Philosophy Tina Rulli published a report titled “What is the Value of Three-Parent IVF?“…If you have seen any of the countless descriptions of three-parent or three-person IVF…as a “life-saving treatment,” you might find the question in the title confusing. How could any life-saving treatment not be of value?
As Rulli explains, the claim that this technology would save lives is “inaccurate and exaggerated.” Three-person IVF would not cure, treat, or save anyone…The choice a woman would make is not “do I save my child?” but “do I want to have a child in this way?” Rulli makes [the]…argument that these are not morally equivalent, and that it is irresponsible to act as though they are.
…
Rulli…therefore concludes, despite the Institute of Medicine’s report endorsing the potential of “clinical trials,” that any public research investment in three-person IVF would be unethical.
…
Proponents are already pointing to three-person IVF as a pioneer technology…Rulli’s report will be a useful framework to have on hand.
The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis. Read full, original post: The Case Against Public Investment in Reproductive Genetic Modification
