Since the birth in 1978 of the first “test-tube” baby, more than 8 million children worldwide have been born thanks to reproductive technologies. In 2017, the last year for which there is published data, there were 284,385 ART cycles, primarily IVF cycles, in the United States, resulting in 78,052 live infants. The technologies carry medical risks and raise ethical questions, but the industry is much less regulated in the U.S. than in other industrialized nations, Klitzman says.
Klitzman began exploring these issues after a friend asked him to donate sperm so she could have a child: “I would be the biological father, but would or should I also take on the social role of being one? ... What if I disagreed with her about how to raise our child?” He wondered how others made decisions about questions like this.
In his book, Klitzman zeroes in on recent technologies that allow patients and doctors to select and transfer embryos with the traits they desire. Doctors who perform IVF have begun testing embryos for dozens of genes through preimplantation genetic testing. While most of those procedures are done to prevent disease by allowing physicians to select mutation-free embryos, many U.S. clinics have used the technology to enable parents to select their child’s gender, assuming a successful pregnancy resulted.
A new gene-editing technique, known as CRISPR, goes further, allowing labs to insert or remove various genes. “The problem is the technology could be used for many socially desirable traits — you could put in genes for height or perfect pitch,” he says. That worries Klitzman: “Choosing socially desirable genes constitutes eugenics, which led to horrific outcomes in Nazi Germany,” he says.
Klitzman notes the potential for other inequalities as well. The price tag for the technologies — he says IVF treatments cost more than $24,000 on average — typically makes them unaffordable for all but the affluent. He writes: “Wealthy individuals are eliminating certain lethal mutations from their offspring while the poor cannot. ... Resources and research to battle these conditions may then fall, while stigma rises.”
Klitzman says there is insufficient data to adequately monitor these advances and calls for greater mandatory data collection and better education and guidelines. “We need to proceed with great caution,” he says, “and instead we are racing ahead.”
Klitzman ultimately declined to donate his sperm; he felt he was not ready to take on the commitments that would be required. “I have often wondered if I made the right decision,” he writes. “But the choice helped me understand the predicaments that countless potential parents confront.”
The Latest
See all
Related News
Princeton to Cut Way Down on Alums’ Free Google Email Storage
A squeeze from Google is prompting Princeton to slice the generous free email storage it offered alumni in the past
Meet Kathy Crow ’89: Philanthropist and Lightning Rod
The former lacrosse standout’s friendship with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas stirred a national controversy
2 Responses
Robert Klitzman, M.D. ’80
4 Years AgoProceeding With Great Caution
Robert Cooper *12, in responding to the PAW article about my new book, Designing Babies: How Technology is Changing the Ways We Create Children, appreciates the complexities that the book raises, but criticizes the comment that “choosing socially desirable genes constitutes eugenics.” He writes that “assisted reproductive technologies are in no way of a kind with the genocides and forced sterilizations of the eugenics movement. Eugenics was about taking away personal choice … the two are polar opposites.”
But his letter suggests only a partial understanding of the eugenics movement, which in fact had many different forms. As the historian of science, Daniel Kevles, writes in In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity, Charles Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton, coined the term “eugenics” (from the Greek, “good in birth”) in 1883. Galton used the phrase to describe efforts to give “more suitable races … a better chance of prevailing” over others.
In the early 20th Century, the eugenics movement spread in the U.S., as waves of Catholic and Jewish immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe arrived. In 1904, Charles Davenport established the Cold Spring Harbor Lab, collecting family pedigrees, and arguing that “feeblemindedness,” “pauperism” as well as various diseases were all hereditary. In his 1923 book, A Study of American Intelligence, Princeton professor Carl Brigham, a member of the Advisory Council of the American Eugenics Society, asserted that “Nordic races” were intellectually superior to others (though Brigham later recognized his errors, and helped develop the SAT test). In the 1920s, the American Eugenics Society began sponsoring dozens of Fitter Family Contests in Kansas and elsewhere, awarding trophies. Unfortunately, Hitler adapted his ideas about eugenics from the U.S., and took them to horrific ends.
As I expand on in the book itself, eugenics therefore took on various manifestations. Cooper’s statement that “eugenics was about taking away personal choice” refers to some, but hardly all of this movement’s unfortunate outputs. Eugenics also produced biased writings, disseminated misinformation, and promoted social inequalities, discrimination, racism, social stigma and other injustices.
I nowhere say that using new technologies for choosing traits seen as socially desirable — whether selecting male over female embryos, or genes associated with IQ, height, blond hair, blue eyes, certain kinds of athletic prowess, etc. — constitutes a Holocaust. Rather, as we use these rapidly evolving technologies to alter our descendants’ genes for non-medical purposes, we should proceed with great caution, given the many past ways our society has, alas, viewed and pursued traits perceived as socially desirable.
Robert Cooper *12
4 Years AgoA Matter of Choice
Kudos to Robert Klitzman ’80 for exploring the complex ethical implications raised by “next-gen reproduction” technologies (Princetonians, Feb. 12), which promise to allow parents to prevent inherited diseases, or even select traits, for their children. However, the pull quote — “choosing socially desirable genes constitutes eugenics” — invokes the wrong supercharged bogeyman, which detracts from the discussion.
Assisted reproductive technologies are in no way of a kind with the genocides and forced sterilizations of the eugenics movement. Eugenics was about taking away personal choice — the ability to reproduce, or even to remain alive — whereas selecting genes for your offspring provides more. In treatment of personal agency, the two are polar opposites. (The baby, of course, never gets a say in any scenario.)
There are myriad moral quandaries in deciding whether and what genes parents should be able to choose, some of which are raised in the article. But the Holocaust is not an appropriate frame from which to view these technologies, and raising the specter of Nazis is not the most helpful way to analyze the issues.
Editor’s note: Author Robert Klitzman ’80 responded to this letter with an explanation of various manifestations of eugenics in the 19th and 20th centuries.