Chicks for Free

A big-deal cloning project in South Korea has been mucked up by ethics concerns about where and how scientists got their "donated" human eggs. Researchers stand accused of paying women for the eggs -- currently illegal in South Korea -- and possibly getting them from junior scientists at the same lab. Sez yesterday's WaPo:

When the research was submitted to Science, Hwang informed the journal that the eggs had been obtained voluntarily and without any payment to the women -- an approach that many ethicists and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences agree is ideal -- to ensure that women do not feel coerced to undergo the egg-retrieval procedure, which carries a small chance of serious ill effects.

It now appears that Roh did pay the women -- about $1,500 each -- according to Roh's comments in Chosun Ilbo.

It makes sense to discourage scientists from harvesting the eggs of their employees, and not just because it's insanely creepy. But why are South Korean lawmakers, and, for that matter, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, so concerned that women cough up their genetic material for free? More to the point, how is it less "coercive" to ask a college kid to supply some ova for the sake of science than for a measly $1500? Apparently, if scientists offer women cash, they'll feel "coerced" into accepting it. Whereas if scientists patiently explain that doping up on fertility drugs and surrendering the results is something a woman should do out of the goodness of her heart, we can start breeding clones with a clear conscience.

Comments

[SR]

While I agree there should be no problem with selling eggs, the argument here seems to be in complete harmony with the obscene argument routinely trotted out by alleged "bioethicists" that people shouldn't be compensated for their organs.

[Jennifer]

I'm realy surprised someone hasn't already tried to outlaw payment for surrogate mothers.

[theCoach]

I can see the ethical problems with possible coercion of employees donating eggs for research, but ethically, compared to even debating whether or not we should torture people, this is a small potatos.

[theOneState]

I think the point, too, though they didn't mention it, is to NOT reach a point in society where poor people subject themselves to medical experiments or procedures out of desperation.

But it does seem ridiculous - especially for the reporter who worded it that way - that "to ensure that women do not feel coerced to undergo the egg-retrieval procedure, which carries a small chance of serious ill effects", they should not be compensated for that risk. Except, you know, the good feelings they get out of giving for science.

At least give 'em hazard pay.

[David]

But why are South Korean lawmakers, and, for that matter, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, so concerned that women cough up their genetic material for free?

That's an easy one! Why pay for something if you can moralize, or legislate to get it for free?

[The Egg Man]

It makes sense to discourage scientists from harvesting the eggs of their employees, and not just because it's insanely creepy.

Oh, hey, Keiko... mind if I just reach in there and... got it! Thanks!

[mediageek]

Why pay for something if you can moralize, or legislate to get it for free?

Bingo.

[Chuck]

I think the point, too, though they didn't mention it, is to NOT reach a point in society where poor people subject themselves to medical experiments or procedures out of desperation.

You mean like selling their blood plasma for money?

[Jennifer]

I think the point, too, though they didn't mention it, is to NOT reach a point in society where poor people subject themselves to medical experiments or procedures out of desperation.

I would also like to see a time when poor people aren't so desperate for money that they'll spend their days scrubbing (literally) shitty toilets for pathetically low wages. So let's make it illegal to pay toilet-cleaners, too! We'll just let toilets be scrubbed by volunteers motivated solely by the desire to live in a cleaner world.

[thoreau]

I'd sooner see the people who go through such procedures paid for their contribution to science.

But lab chiefs should never accept eggs from their subordinates. Too many conflicts of interest, too much potential for somebody to be pressured into "volunteering" so she can keep her position. And, to be honest, how many people want their bosses to be able to read their gene sequences?

I'm not necessarily saying that "there oughta be a law", I'm just saying that there are some things that decent scientists simply should not do.

[Larry A]

But why are South Korean lawmakers, and, for that matter, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, so concerned that women cough up their genetic material for free? More to the point, how is it less "coercive" to ask a college kid to supply some ova for the sake of science than for a measly $1500?

It makes perfect sense if your aim is to prevent cloning. It's not "less 'coercive' to ask a college kid to supply some ova for the sake of science than for a measly $1500" but it is a whole lot less effective. Every ova not collected is one less ova that can be used in a cloning attempt.

The same is true of organs. If by signing up to be a donor you could hand your heirs the eligibility to collect $1500 per healthy organ, the waiting-for-transplant list would be about four people long.

[Rich, Evil Scientist]

"It makes perfect sense if your aim is to prevent cloning. It's not "less 'coercive' to ask a college kid to supply some ova for the sake of science than for a measly $1500" but it is a whole lot less effective. Every ova not collected is one less ova that can be used in a cloning attempt."

Well, there go my plans for taking over the world with a cloned army of super humans.

[JP]

It makes sense to discourage scientists from harvesting the eggs of their employees, and not just because it's insanely creepy.

Just to be contrary . . . does it in fact make sense? Assuming the employee has been hired on an "at-will" basis (as most of us are), the employer (under pretty basic Anglo-American common law) can change the terms of continued employment at any time. So, if the employer says on Friday, "Hey, starting Monday, it will be a condition of your employment that you let us harvest your eggs if we want to," the employees have a choice whether to come in on Monday (and thus continue the employer-employee relationship with this employer) or to say no thanks and find a job elsewhere.

Presumably, if this is insanely creepy, then the employer who seeks to get eggs in this way will be penalized by having a harder time getting employees than his competitors. Isn't that discouragement enough?

[crimethink]

Well, the way they get compensated for the risk, presumably, is that if anything did go wrong they could sue the researchers.

[Dave W.]

Nice balanced post about a difficult issue. Persuasive.