John Harris: A world without men? That's not the real ethical issue here
I cannot see a downside to research that increases the range of human possibility and choice
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
The end of men has always been a possibility. Women have many ways of trying to do without men. They don't need men – they just need their sperm. Sperm is a notoriously renewable resource and it is plentiful. There is always the turkey baster option for women who want to get pregnant but do not see the need to get a man.
Now, if this research is confirmed, all they will need is a very large supply of male stem cells. Might we see the George Clooney stem cell line (assuming he were to consent to it)? I can see no objection. It is no more wrong to choose the genes of your child than your reproductive partner. Indeed, we have always sought to do both, choosing our partners on the basis of our – sometimes erroneous – belief about the sort of children likely to result. I see nothing wrong with people exercising that choice using the technology as it becomes available.
If it is not wrong to wish for a bouncing brown-eyed baby girl, why would it become wrong once we had the technology to play Fairy Godmother to ourselves and grant our own wish?
If the researchers have done what they claim to have done, this is an important advance. It will mean that no man in the future will need to regard himself as infertile and for many men that will be very liberating. I cannot see a downside to research that increases the range of human possibility and choice.
But that depends on the process being practical and safe. First we have to be sure that genuine sperm have been created and that they are healthy and viable and won't cause the death of the embryo or unacceptable defects. In previous work from this group on mice, the baby mice produced died early. Safety is going to be a key factor.
This is true of all reproductive technologies. It was true of the first attempts at IVF. It is also true of normal human sexual reproduction, which has an 80 per cent failure rate (to produce a pregnancy). If sexual reproduction were introduced today it would never get a licence – the failure rate is too high.
A general feature of reproductive technologies is that they are more perfectable than normal sexual reproduction so it is possible eventually to achieve a higher success rate and a lower abnormality rate. You will be able through refinement and research to examine the sperm and eggs and embryo before implantation in a way that you can't do in normal sexual reproduction. Some of these techniques are already safer than sexual reproduction.
The real ethical issue here is that we do not foreclose the beneficial possibilities of research through prejudice or fear. We need to ensure that the science can continue and that we remain receptive to, but critical of, the opportunities it affords.
John Harris is professor of bioethics at The University of Manchester and editor-in-chief of the 'Journal of Medical Ethics'
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
We might have eventually a new mutant who/which has no sex and no requirement for sexual reproduction activities or specifications; physically or mentally.
It calls for celebration as there would be no "gender differences' and the whole problems related to this matter would be resolved (obsoleted) forever.
Why should we accept lectures from these so-called experts, apparently blind to the consequences of their total moral corruption. I support his right to free speech, but why is the Independent providing a platform for such extremist views and why are we, as tax payers, subsidising such bias.
Whenever you read anything written by John Harris, alarm bells should ring. Brave New World. Just replace Soma with Ritalian and Prozac, celebrity worship, cloning, dumbing down of the masses through the entertainment industry and scant regard for the human life of those of us unable to emulate the physical perfection that cosmetic surgery and biotechnology can bring.
If humanity means anything, it means accepting who we are and caring for our own. Get rid of the likes of __John Harris__ before it's too late. You have been warned. These people are a much greater threat than yesteryear's Neo-Nazis for they usher in a new age of eugenics and mind control.
didn't get the "threat to manhood" panic reaction at all. indicative that this appears. there is no correlating female panic.
reveals an archaic patriarchal architecture in the modern liberal mind
ta fa the insight
mand
x
If so, they should attract Value Added Tax at the standard rate.
He may think that, but saying it does not make it true.
Perhaps he did not listen to the Reith lecturer arguing, cogently I thought, the opposite view, giving three reasons.
This man/article undermines society and is shameful.
"God invented men because vibrators can't mow the lawn."
My wife tells me she is perfectly capable of mowing the lawn, so that's it guys: we're toast.
Anyway, women have one need that requires men. Women require all kinds of emotional stimulation including getting annoyed, and only men have that special way of annoying them that leads to full emotional satisfaction.
What do we get? Some wiggly sperm cells.
What about the miracle cures promised to the gullible who believed them? Do these guys not feel a little embarrassed?