Natural Mothers and Other Kinds

In this seminal book, Observatory Director Sheila Jasanoff explains the reasons behind the different paths that the US, the UK, and Germany have taken in biotechnology policy and regulation. This includes different political cultures and ways of public reasoning and decision-making, which she captures with the concept of “civic epistemology.” Chapter 6 focuses on debates and moral dilemmas that surrounded the emergence of IVF and the “technological capacity to manipulate human life” (2005:146). The countries mentioned above started with the same questions, but their policy responses diverged, reflecting “different assumptions about the continuity of human development, as well as the role of the state in preserving human dignity” (2005:147). For lawmakers, assisted reproduction technologies share with abortion a preoccupation to establish limits and define the moral status of the embryo and fetus. Britain reached stability and consensus through the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), backed by the leadership of trusted individuals and institutions, and confidence in making ontological distinctions like the existence of the pre-embryo. Germany’s path was shaped by its commitment to protect human dignity and the right to life. Abortion was among the most contentious issues in the reunification of Germany in the early 1990s; thus, the country was more rigid and did not allow for ontological breaks after conception. In the US, decisions over assisted reproduction have been left to the market and individual choice, and disputes have been resolved in court. In sum, nations have attempted to define limits on abortion and new human biotechnologies that put into question the legitimacy of the state in deciding over matters of life and death.