Final Report (all chapters)

taxonomies are likely to exist. For example, in “Reproduction and Responsibility,” the
President’s Council on Bioethics adopts a similar but by no means identical taxonomy. 1
The commercialization of reproductive treatments would require a separate discussion. By
this term, we mean both the commercial trade of human reproductive tissues and the various
contractual arrangements made possible by the market for reproductive tissues. Many
reproductive treatments, standard or otherwise, raise distinctive ethical and legal questions if the
gametes involved stem from one or more third parties. Also to be included in this category is
surrogacy, or the delegation of a pregnancy to a surrogate mother. While these questions are by
no means trivial or negligible, in this report we will not discuss them in detail. The
transformation of human procreation from an intimate act to a set of contractual obligations is a
tendency that certainly does not leave us indifferent. At the same time, this trend is not new, and
does not raise fundamental new ethical dilemmas. For this reason, in this report we focus mainly
on new technological possibilities in the narrow sense of this term.
Our classificatory scheme is designed to emphasize what we believe are distinctive
attributes of various reproductive technologies and lines of biomedical research. By classifying a
new reproductive technique as an instance of a familiar type of reproductive treatment, policymakers
would have at their disposal several tried and tested ethical arguments. Reliance on
ethical precedents would of course greatly simplify the task of identifying the most appropriate
regulatory response. This is an important benefit, considering the often puzzling nature of new
bioethical dilemmas. A quasi-judicial approach to the resolution of controversial ethical
questions would also minimize the opportunities for interest groups to influence or distort the
regulatory process. In the process, it would make judicial review a less attractive option. Finally,
a classificatory scheme would discipline regulators by encouraging the adoption of consistent
policies, thus reducing the scope for arbitrary and capricious agency behavior. In sum, a
taxonomy of reproductive treatments and biomedical research would increase both the
consistency and fairness of the rule-making process. 2
1
2
There are considerable similarities here between resolving classificatory ambiguity and the task faced by
common law judges (and the Supreme Court, for that matter) in determining exactly which precedents are
relevant to judicial case. We will return to this question in chapter 7.
Ethicists may find the approach proposed here reminiscent of casuistry. Cf. Carson Strong, Ethics in
Reproductive and Perinatal Medicine: A New Framework (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997).
Social scientists could point out that classificatory schemes have been at the center of heated debates in the
sociology of science for many years. See Barry Barnes, "On the Conventional Character of Knowledge and
Cognition," in Science Observed. Perspectives on the Social Study of Science, ed. Karin Knorr-Cetina and
Michael Mulkay (London: Sage Publications, 1983); Barry Barnes, David Bloor, and John Henry, Scientific
Knowledge: A Sociological Analysis (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1996); David Bloor,
Wittgenstein, Rules and Institutions (London: Routledge, 1997); Harry M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication
and Induction in Scientific Practice (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1992); Harry M. Collins and
Trevor Pinch, The Golem. What Everyone Should Know About Science (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press, 1993); Mary Douglas, Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory (London: Routledge, 1992).
76