Feminist Perspectives on Human Genetics and Reproductive Technologies


Feminism offers three separate but equally important insights about human genetics and the new reproductive technologies. First, feminism is concerned with ways in which these new technologies have the potential to exploit women, particularly in the treatment of their reproductive tissue, while seeming to offer both sexes greater reproductive freedom. This risk has been largely ignored by much bioethics, which has concentrated on choice and autonomy at the expense of justice, giving it little to say about the concept of exploitation. Second, feminist scholars have developed complex and subtle analyses of how women's labour is incorporated into the global bioeconomy in a gendered manner. Although feminist perspectives vary on such issues as surrogate motherhood, they have provided important studies of how women's labour is commodified in the new reproductive technologies. Finally, feminist analysts and activists have been among the leaders in identifying and resisting the threats from commodification and commercialisation in genetic research and patenting, which often affect women disproportionately. In all three areas, feminist writers have drawn specific attention to medical, economic and political impacts on women that had not been adequately considered.

Key Concepts

  • Conventional bioethics frequently lacks a political dimension, which feminism corrects by focusing on power and justice issues in the new biotechnologies, including reproductive technologies and human genetics.
  • According to a feminist analysis, genetics and new reproductive technologies (NRTs) pose a risk when they ignore or even worsen those differences in burdens between men and women that actually could be alleviated by modern biotechnology.
  • A key insight of feminism is that neither genetics nor NRT is gender neutral.
  • For example, if there were to be a general movement towards either ‘producing the best children we can’ or ‘three‐parent IVF’ for the purpose of minimising hereditary genetic disorders, women would be asked routinely to undergo superovulation and egg extraction, processes which carry serious medical risks.
  • This reality is ignored by proponents of ‘procreative beneficence’ and ‘enhancement’, who argue that we should produce ‘the best children we can’ but ignore the burdens on women that would result.
  • Other common practices in reproductive technologies, including egg sale and commercial surrogate motherhood, have also been contested by feminists, with a particular reaction against cross‐border surrogacy in the Third World.
  • Women have also been disproportionately affected by the trend towards private firms taking out patents on human genes, such as levied for diagnostic tests on two genes implicated in some breast cancers, BRCA1 and BRCA2.
  • A major US legal case, brought by a coalition of women patients and professional bodies, succeeded in overturning many of these patents, demonstrating that it is possible to resist harmful aspects of the new biotechnologies if their inescapably political nature is recognised, as feminists have argued.

Keywords: new reproductive technologies; feminism; genetic testing; genetic patents; commodification, procreative beneficence; egg sale; surrogacy; three‐parent IVF; altruism; gift


d'Agincourt‐Canning L (2001) Experiences of genetic risk: disclosure and the gendering of responsibility. Bioethics 2015: 231–247.

Almeling R (2011) Sex Cells: The Medical Market in Eggs and Sperm. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Anderson E (1990) Is women's labor a commodity? Philosophy and Public Affairs 19: 71–92.

Andrews L (1995) Beyond doctrinal boundaries: a legal framework for surrogate motherhood. Virginia Law Review 81: 2343–2375.

Andrews L (2002) Genes and patent policy: rethinking intellectual property rights. Nature Reviews. Genetics 3: 803–808.

Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. (2013) 133 S.Ct. 2107.

Barrett A, Roques T and Small M (2006) How much will Herceptin really cost? British Medical Journal 333: 1118–1120.

Baylis F and McLeod C (2007) The stem cell debate continues: the buying and selling of eggs for research. Journal of Medical Ethics 33: 726–731.

Baylis F (2009) For love or money? The saga of the Korean women who provided eggs for stem cell research. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 30: 385–396.

Baylis F (2013) The ethics of creating children with three genetic parents. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 26: 531–534.

Beauchamp T and Childress J (2001) Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 5th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Beeson D, Darnovsky M and Lippman A (2015) What's in a name? Variations in terminology of third‐party reproduction. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 31: 805–814.

Callahan D (2003) Individual good and common good: a communitarian approach to bioethics. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 46: 496–507.

Cooper M (2007) Life as Surplus: Biotechnics and the Transformation of Capital. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Cooper M and Waldby C (2014) Clinical Labor: Tissue Donors and Research Subjects in the Global Bioeconomy. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Cyranoski D (2004) Korean's stem‐cell stars dogged by suspicion of ethical breach. Nature 429: 3. DOI: 10.1038/429003a.

Dickenson DL (2001) Property and women's alienation from their own reproductive labour. Bioethics 15: 205–217.

Dickenson DL (2006) The lady vanishes: what's missing from the stem cell debate. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 3: 43–54.

Dickenson DL (2007) Property in the Body: Feminist Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd ed 2017.

Dickenson DL (2013a) The commercialization of human eggs in mitochondrial replacement research. The New Bioethics 19 (1): 18–29.

Dickenson DL (2013b) Exploitation and choice in the global egg trade: emotive terminology or necessary critique? In: Goodwin M (ed.) The Global Body Market: Altruism's Limits, pp. 21–43. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Dickenson DL (2016) The End of Cross‐border Surrogacy? Project Syndicate, February 25, https://www.project‐syndicate.org/commentary/crackdown‐on‐international‐surrogacy‐trade‐by‐donna‐dickenson‐2016‐02 (accessed 20 June 2016).

Dodds S (2003) Women, commodification and embryonic stem cell research. In: Humber J and Almeder RF (eds) Biomedical Ethics Reviews: Stem Cell Research, pp. 149–175. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.

Dyer C (2006) Patient is to appeal High Court ruling on breast cancer drug. British Medical Journal 332: 443.

Ekman KE (2013) Being Bought: Prostitution, Surrogacy and the Split Self. North Melbourne, Victoria: Spinifex.

Ertman M (2010) The upside of baby markets. In: Goodwin MB (ed.) Baby Markets: Money and the New Politics of Creating Families, pp. 23–40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fox RC and Swazey JP (2008) Observing Bioethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gupta A and Richters A (2008) Embodied subjects and fragmented objects: women's bodies, assisted reproduction technologies and the right to self‐determination. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 5: 239–249.

Hwang WS, Ryu YJ, Park JH, et al. (2004) Evidence of a human pluripotent stem cell line derived from a cloned blastocyst. Science 303: 1669–1674.

Hwang WS, Roh SI, Lee BC, et al. (2005) Patient‐specific embryonic stem cell lines derived from human SCNT blastocysts. Science 308: 1777–1783.

Ikemoto L (2009) Eggs as capital: human egg procurement in the fertility industry and the stem cell research enterprise. Signs 34: 763–781.

Ingram T (2014) Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.: the product of nature doctrine revisited. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 29: 385.

Jensen K and Murray F (2005) International patenting: the landscape of the human genome. Science 310: 239–240.

Jones DA (2015) The other woman: evaluating the language of ‘three parent’ embryos. Clinical Ethics 10: 97–106.

Kesselheim AS, Cook‐Deegan RM, Winickoff DE, et al. (2013) Gene patenting—the Supreme Court finally speaks. New England Journal of Medicine 369: 869–875.

McLeod C and Baylis F (2005) For dignity or money: feminists on the commodification of women's reproductive labor. In: Steinbock B (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Bioethics, pp. 258–283. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mahowald MB (2000) Genes, Women, Equality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Markens S (2010) Surrogate Motherhood and the Politics of Reproduction. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Rose H (2001) Gendered genetics in Iceland. New Genomics and Society 20: 119–138.

Rudrappa S (2015) Discounted Life: The Price of Commercial Surrogacy in India. New York: New York University Press.

Satz D (2010) Why Some Things Should Not Be For Sale. New York: Oxford University Press.

Savulescu J (2001) Procreative beneficence: why we should select the best children. Bioethics 15 (5–6): 413–426.

Schultz S and Braun K (2013) Procuring tissue: regenerative medicine, oocyte mobilisation and feminist politics. In: Webster A (ed.) The Global Dynamics of Regenerative Medicine: A Social Science Critique, pp. 118–149. New York: Springer.

Scott ES (2009) Surrogacy and the politics of commodification. Law and Contemporary Problems 72: 109–146.

Sistare CT (1994) Reproductive freedom and women's freedom: surrogacy and autonomy. In: Jaggar AM (ed.) Living with Contradictions: Controversies in Feminist Social Ethics, pp. 395–401. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Steinbrook R (2006) Egg donation and human embryonic stem‐cell research. New England Journal of Medicine 354: 324–326.

Tober D (2001) Semen as gift, semen as goods: reproductive laborers and the market in altruism. Body & Society 7: 137–160.

Waldby C and Cooper M (2008) The biopolitics of reproduction: post‐Fordist biotechnology and women's reproductive labour. Australian Feminist Studies 23: 57–73.

Widdows H (2013) Rejecting the choice paradigm: rethinking the ethical framework in prostitution and egg sale debates. In: Madhok S, Phillips A and Wilson K (eds) Gender, Agency, and Coercion, pp. 157–180. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan UK.

Williams HL (2013) Intellectual property rights and innovation: evidence from the human genome. Journal of Political Economy 121: 1–27.

Further Reading

Asch A and Geller G (1998) Feminism, bioethics and genetics. In: Wolf S (ed.) Feminism and Bioethics: Beyond Reproduction, pp. 318–350. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Callahan JC (ed.) (1994) Reproduction, Ethics and the Law. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press.

Dickenson DL (ed.) (2002) Ethical Issues in Maternal–Fetal Medicine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dickenson DL (2009) Body Shopping: Converting Body Parts to Profit. Oxford: Oneworld.

Francis LP (ed.) (2016) The Oxford Handbook of Reproductive Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.

Overall C (1987) Ethics and Human Reproduction: A Feminist Analysis. Boston, MA: Allen & Unwin.

Phillips A (2013) Our Bodies, Whose Property? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Sherwin S (1992) No Longer Patient: Feminist Ethics and Health Care. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Waldby C and Mitchell R (2006) Tissue Economies: Blood, Organs and Cell Lines in Late Capitalism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Widdows H (2013) The Connected Self: The Ethics and Governance of the Genetic Individual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Contact Editor close
Submit a note to the editor about this article by filling in the form below.

* Required Field

How to Cite close
Dickenson, Donna(Nov 2016) Feminist Perspectives on Human Genetics and Reproductive Technologies. In: eLS. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester. http://www.els.net [doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0005592.pub3]