The Gray Areas at the Edges of Regulation

Posted by Pete Shanks August 26, 2009
Biopolitical Times

When Americans consider regulating repro-genetic and related technologies, the British experience is usually relevant. The UK has had systems in place so long they have actually been revised, but they still throw up challenges we would do well to note. Three were in the news this week:

Sperm donation is subject to regulation that includes medical checks and the requirement that children eventually be allowed to know the identity of their biological fathers. Some entrepreneurs thought they could get around these rules by never freezing or storing sperm: They set up "agencies" to connect buyers with sellers without directly dealing with the product. This was clearly against the spirit of the law, and after an extended investigation, complete with a newspaper sting, two men are now facing charges of "procuring sperm" illegally, and possible two-year jail terms.

Sex selection for social reasons is prohibited in the UK. There is, however, a way around that: Go to a foreign country, such as the US. Fertility Institutes of Los Angeles, who had a bout of notoriety earlier this year for advertising that they would select embryos for hair, eye and skin color, opened a Manhattan office in January, in part for the European market. "Britain is far more conservative than it used to be," Dr Jeffrey Steinberg told the London Times last week. "They were the innovators but now they've got handcuffs on." He continued, with no apparent irony: "From a business standpoint, it's the best thing going. From a medical standpoint, it's a travesty."

DNA profiling for police work is solidly entrenched in the UK, with 4.5 million profiles in its database (from a population one-fifth of the US, where the database has 7 million), including more than 800,000 from people who were never charged or have been cleared. This is controversial, and under scrutiny, but an interesting precedent was just set when an MP who was arrested last year but not charged succeeded in getting his data deleted. He called the decision a "small but significant victory for freedom and privacy in this country," and added, "What is really important now is that I don't get special treatment just because I am a public figure." He vowed to change the law: "One down, 800,000 to go."

Regulation in practice is hard. There will always be gray areas at the edges. But we in the US can learn from the British experience -- even, perhaps especially, when they make mistakes.

Previously on Biopolitical Times: