Final Report (all chapters)

almost without saying. Children born through this procedure could suffer severe psychological
harm, as a crucial aspect of their personal identity – a biological mother – would be missing.
Interestingly, the scientists in question were not prepared to re-examine the rationale for
conducting this line of research despite the outcry that the experiment generated among their
peers. 34 They simply acknowledged the strong negative reactions their experiment produced,
noting that “probably, in some places, it will be ethically acceptable.” 35
Another case of an innovative reproductive treatment that met with considerable resistance
from the ART community was the announcement by a U.S. researcher that he had added cells
from a male embryo to a female embryo, thus creating a chimeric human embryo. 36 The creation
of chimeras is nothing new in biology, but this appeared to be the first documented case of a
researcher actually creating and growing, albeit for only a few days, a human chimera.
The justification offered by the researcher for creating the chimeric human embryo was
rather nebulous. The experiment was designed to test an innovative therapy to cure severe
combined immunodeficiency (SCID), also known as “bubble boy disease.” By adding healthy
embryo cells to a diseased embryo, the resulting baby is likely to acquire healthy cells that might
be able to fight the disease. This, at least, was the hope expressed by the researcher in this case.
The scientist decided to add male embryo cells to a female embryo because male embryo cells
are easier to track. The researcher was hoping that the male embryo cells would distribute
homogeneously over the female embryos, which apparently they did. In this narrow, sense the
experiment was successful.
The sharply negative reaction the announcement of this experiment produced is both a
testimony to a shared sense of professional responsibility among the members of the ART
community and a demonstration of the limits of professional self-regulation. Many of the
researcher’s colleagues questioned the scientific rationale for conducting this experiment. They
also emphasized the damage that the announcement of this experiment might cause to the
reputation of the entire ART industry.
Some may interpret these statements as an illustration of reputational incentives at work. 37
In a narrow sense, this is true, but it would be misleading to draw broad lessons from this
34
35
36
37
Shaoni Bhattacharya, Aborted Fetuses Could Become 'Unborn Mothers' (New Scientist, July 1, 2003 [cited
August 2, 2005]); available from http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993889; Ian Sample,
"Prospect of Babies from Unborn Mothers," The Guardian, July 1, 2003; Jeevan Vasagar, "Use of Foetal Eggs
Grotesque, Say Campaigners," The Guardian, July 2, 2003.
Bhattacharya, Aborted Fetuses Could Become 'Unborn Mothers' ([cited).
Shaoni Bhattacharya, 'She-Male' Embryos Created in Lab (New Scientist, July 3, 2003 [cited April 26, 2006]);
available from http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993905; Steve Connor, "Scientists Outraged
over Fusion of Male and Female Embryos Condemn Attempt to Combine Male and Female Cells," The
Independent, July 3, 2003; Emma Ross, "European Group Denounces Chimera Embryo," Associated Press, July
2, 2003; Ian Sample, "Scientists Hit out at Creator of 'She-Males'," The Guardian, July 3, 2003.
See, for example, David Charny, "Nonlegal Sanctions in Commercial Relationships," Harvard Law Review 104
(1990); Ronald J. Mann, "Verification Institutions in Financial Transactons," Georgetown Law Journal 87
(1999); Eric A. Posner, "The Regulation of Groups: The Influence of Legal and Nonlegal Sanctions on
Collective Action," University of Chicago Law Review 63 (1996).
87