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