Regulating reproductive genetic services: dealing with spiral-shaped processes and techno-scientific imaginaries

被引:5
作者
Alon, Ido [1 ]
Urbanos-Garrido, Rosa [2 ]
Guimon, Jose [1 ]
机构
[1] Autonomous Univ Madrid, Dept Dev Econ, Res Grp Econ & Management Innovat, Madrid, Spain
[2] Univ Complutense Madrid, Dept Appl Econ Publ Econ & Polit Econ, Madrid, Spain
关键词
Assisted reproductive technologies; Reproductive genetic services; Diffusion of innovation; Regulating emerging technologies; Delphi; Preimplantation genetic testing; TECHNOLOGY-PUSH; ISRAELI WOMEN; DEMAND-PULL; DELPHI; HEALTH; FUTURE; PGD; EXPECTATIONS; SOCIOLOGY; ATTITUDES;
D O I
10.1007/s10815-020-02017-9
中图分类号
Q3 [遗传学];
学科分类号
071007 ; 090102 ;
摘要
Purpose We have been inquiring into the diffusion process of reproductive genetic services (RGS) and the viability of geneticization in human reproduction. Method A 2-round modified-Delphi survey was applied amongst Israeli and Spanish experts to analyze regulatory attitudes and expectations about the future applications of RGS. We argue that an explanation of RGS diffusion based on a 'technology-push' impulse should be complemented by a 'demandpull' approach, which underscores the importance of regulatory frameworks and demand-inducing policies. The diffusion of RGS is advancing in a 'spiralshaped' process where technology acts as a cause and effect simultaneously, modulating social acceptance and redefining the notions of health and responsibility along the way. Results We suggest that there is a 'grey-zone' of RGS regulations regarding four procedures: the use of germline genome modification (GGM) for severe monogenic disorders, preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) for detection of chromosomal abnormalities, PGT for multifactorial diseases, and PGT with whole-exome screening. Conclusions Although far from the geneticization of human reproduction, our findings suggest that, since techno-scientific imaginaries tend to shape regulations and thus favor the diffusion of RGS, policymakers should pay attention to those procedures by focusing on good practices and equity while providing sound information on potential risks and expected success rates. A broad and inclusive societal debate is critical for overcoming the difficulty of drawing a clear line between medical and non-medical uses of genetic selection and engineering while searching for the right balance between allowing reproductive autonomy and protecting the public interest.
引用
收藏
页码:305 / 317
页数:13
相关论文
共 89 条
  • [61] Demand-pull, technology-push, and government-led incentives for non-incremental technical change
    Nemet, Gregory F.
    [J]. RESEARCH POLICY, 2009, 38 (05) : 700 - 709
  • [62] Oliveira Maridite Cristóvão Gomes de, 2017, Rev. Bioét., V25, P338, DOI 10.1590/1983-80422017252194
  • [63] Should preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) be implemented to routine IVF practice?
    Orvieto, Raoul
    Gleicher, Norbert
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ASSISTED REPRODUCTION AND GENETICS, 2016, 33 (11) : 1445 - 1448
  • [64] Pavone V., 2010, ASSESSING LIFE ORG G, P101
  • [65] Beyond the Geneticization Thesis: The Political Economy of PGD/PGS in Spain
    Pavone, Vincenzo
    Arias, Flor
    [J]. SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY & HUMAN VALUES, 2012, 37 (03) : 235 - 261
  • [66] Diagnostic evaluation of the infertile male: a committee opinion
    Pfeifer S.
    Butts S.
    Dumesic D.
    Fossum G.
    Gracia C.
    La Barbera A.
    Odem R.
    Pisarska M.
    Rebar R.
    Reindollar R.
    Rosen M.
    Sandlow J.
    Sokol R.
    Vernon M.
    Widra E.
    [J]. FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2015, 103 (03) : E18 - E25
  • [67] SHALL WE REPRODUCE .1. MEDICAL ETHICS OF IN-VITRO FERTILIZATION
    RAMSEY, P
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1972, 220 (10): : 1346 - &
  • [68] Rapp R., 2007, Reproductive disruptions: Gender, technology, and biopolitics in the new millennium, P98
  • [69] Ravitsky V, 2002, MT SINAI J MED, V69, P312