In a Facebook post, AL-Ghaili bemoans the ethical restrictions inhibiting the research that would make EctoLife a reality. The post reads:
“So, why aren’t we doing this right now? Because there are needless restrictions on research that deals with human embryos. Research on human embryos isn’t allowed beyond 14 days, and that’s a big issue! We need to change the rules and begin exploring options that will help people who are suffering from infertility.”
Ethics seems to be the only thing standing between EctoLife and reality. A feature of Ectolife that has caused a bit of an uproar is genome editing – the facility offers an ‘Elite Package’ to parents, giving them control over their baby’s height, hair, eye color, intelligence, and skin tone, among others.
The discontent over genome editing seems to come from older generations, with younger generations more receptive to genome editing, as Professor Harper learned during an Oxford Union debate on whether it would ‘undermine the nature of humanity’. Prof. Harper told HuffPost UK:
“I spoke for the motion because I think it will, but I can tell you I lost spectacularly. Young people don’t have those hesitations that we have.”
Professor Harper appreciates the numerous benefits of a technology like EctoLife – the reduction of pregnancy complications, the elimination of the need for human surrogates – but opines there are technical and social hurdles that need clearing before EctoLife comes to life.
On the other hand, Prof. Shennan believes ethics won’t hinder the development of an EctoLife-like facility. Prof. Shennan pointed out that things that were considered taboo, like test-tube babies and surrogacy, are common today. He continued:
“So I think from an ethical standpoint, I don’t think it’s that challenging. Yes, they’d have to be legislation if we went down that route. But if you think of the nuts and bolts of the concept, I think we’ve already crossed that bridge.”
