Cuando un algoritmo elige el embrión. Algunas consideraciones éticas acerca de selección de embriones mediante IA
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47133/respy43-25-2-2a-10Palabras clave:
Inteligencia Artificial (IA), selección de embriones, Ética, fertilización in vitro (FIV), tecnología reproductivaResumen
En el campo de la fertilización in vitro (FIV), la inteligencia artificial (IA) se utiliza cada vez más para seleccionar embriones para transferencia. Este artículo explora las implicaciones éticas del uso de la IA en la selección de embriones, discutiendo dos modelos principales: uno basado en las preferencias y valores de los futuros padres y otro basado en los parámetros establecidos por programadores o profesionales de la salud. Se examinan los desafíos éticos de ambos modelos, incluido el potencial de una mayor desigualdad social, la deshumanización de la reproducción y las preocupaciones sobre las responsabilidades parentales. El artículo también considera las implicaciones de un futuro en el que la IA podría elegir embriones de una gran población, lo que plantea preguntas sobre la naturaleza del amor parental y las opiniones sociales sobre la mejora. Finalmente, evalúa si la selección de embriones a través de IA podría exacerbar las injusticias sociales en comparación con las intervenciones de edición genómica, lo que sugiere la necesidad de una supervisión ética cuidadosa en las tecnologías reproductivas.
Descargas
Citas
Afnan, M. A. M., Liu, Y., Conitzer, V., Rudin, C., Mishra, A., Savulescu, J., & Afnan, M. (2021). Interpretable, not black-box, artificial intelligence should be used for embryo selection. Human Reproduction Open, 2021(4), hoab040. https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoab040
Balistreri, M. (2016). Il futuro della riproduzione umana. Fandango.
Balistreri, M. (2020). Superumani: Etica e potenziamento. Edizioni Espress.
Balistreri, M. (2022). Il bambino migliore? Che cosa significa essere genitori responsabili al tempo del genome editing. Fandango.
Barnes, E. (2009). Disability, minority, and difference. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 26(4), 337–355. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5930.2009.00443.x
Barnes, E. (2014). Valuing disability, causing disability. Ethics, 125(1), 88–113. https://doi.org/10.1086/677021
Barnes, E. (2016). The minority body: A theory of disability. Oxford University Press.
Battisti, D. (2021). Affecting future individuals: Why and when germline genome editing entails a greater moral obligation towards progeny. Bioethics, 35(5), 487–495. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12861
Battisti, D. (2024). Procreative responsibility and assisted reproductive technologies. Routledge.
Casado, M. (2009). Sobre la dignidad y los principios: Análisis de la Declaración Universal sobre Bioética y Derechos Humanos de la UNESCO. Civitas.
Coeckelbergh, M. (2010). Moral appearances: Emotions, robots, and human morality. Ethics and Information Technology, 12(3), 235–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9221-y
Coeckelbergh, M. (2013). The moral standing of machines: Towards a relational and non-Cartesian moral hermeneutics. Philosophy & Technology, 27(1), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-013-0133-8
Coeckelbergh, M. (2021). Should we treat Teddy Bear 2.0 as a Kantian dog? Four arguments for the indirect moral standing of personal social robots, with implications for thinking about animals and humans. Minds and Machines, 31(3), 337–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09554-3
Daar, J. (2018). A clash at the petri dish: Transferring embryos with known genetic anomalies. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 5(2), 219–261. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsy012
Donohue, K. E., Dolan, S. M., Watnick, D., Gallagher, K. M., Odgis, J. A., Suckiel, S. A., Teitelman, N., Gelb, B. D., Kenny, E. E., Wasserstein, M. P., Horowitz, C. R., & Bauman, L. J. (2021). Hope versus reality: Parent expectations of genomic testing. Patient Education and Counseling, 104(8), 2073–2079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2021.01.030
Fukuyama, F. (2003). Our posthuman future: Consequences of the biotechnology revolution. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Garland-Thomson, R. (2011). Misfits: A feminist materialist disability concept. Hypatia, 26(3), 591–609. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01206.x
Garland-Thomson, R. (2012). The case for conserving disability. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 9(3), 339–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-012-9380-0
Garland-Thomson, R. (2017). Disability bioethics: From theory to practice. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 27(2), 323–339. https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.2017.0020
Gunkel, D. J. (2018). Robot rights. MIT Press.
Gunkel, D. J. (2023). Person, thing, robot: A moral and legal ontology for the 21st century and beyond. MIT Press.
Habermas, J. (2003). The future of human nature. Polity Press.
Harris, J. (2007). Enhancing evolution: The ethical case for making better people. Princeton University Press.
Jotterand, F., & Ienca, M. (Eds.). (2023). The Routledge handbook of the ethics of human enhancement. Routledge.
Kass, L. R. (2002). Life, liberty and the defense of dignity: The challenge of bioethics. Encounter Books.
Magni, S. F. (2021). In defence of procreative beneficence that affects the person. Bioethics, 35(5), 473–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12853
Medenica, S., Zivanovic, D., Batkoska, L., Marinelli, S., Basile, G., Perino, A., Cucinella, G., Gullo, G., & Zaami, S. (2022). The future is coming: Artificial intelligence in the treatment of infertility could improve assisted reproduction outcomes—The value of regulatory frameworks. Diagnostics, 12(12), Article 2979. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12122979
Navon, M. (2021). The virtuous servant owner—A paradigm whose time has come (again). Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 8, Article 715849. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2021.715849
Rolfes, V., Bittner, U., Gerhards, H., Krüssel, J.-S., Fehm, T., & Fangerau, H. (2023). Artificial intelligence in reproductive medicine—An ethical perspective. Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde, 83(1), 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1866-2138
Salih, M., Austin, C., Warty, R. R., Tiktin, C., Rolnik, D. L., Momeni, M., Rezatofighi, H., Reddy, S., Smith, V., Vollenhoven, B., & Horta, F. (2023). Embryo selection through artificial intelligence versus embryologists: A systematic review. Human Reproduction Open, 2023(3), Article hoad031. https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoad031
Sandel, M. J. (2007). The case against perfection: Ethics in the age of genetic engineering. Harvard University Press.
Savulescu, J. (2001). Procreative beneficence: Why we should select the best children. Bioethics, 15(5-6), 413–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8519.00251
Savulescu, J. (2007). In defence of procreative beneficence. Journal of Medical Ethics, 33(5), 284–288. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2006.018184
Savulescu, J., & Kahane, G. (2009). The moral obligation to create children with the best chance of the best life. Bioethics, 23(5), 274–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00687.x
Silvero Arévalos, J. M. (2019). Tecnologia per il miglioramento umano: Tra speranza e timore. NEU, 4, 81–89.
Smajdor, A., & Cutas, D. (2015). Will artificial gametes end infertility? Health Care Analysis, 23(2), 134–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-013-0254-0
Smajdor, A., Cutas, D., & Takala, T. (2018). Artificial gametes, the unnatural and the artefactual. Journal of Medical Ethics, 44(6), 404–408. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2017-104351
Sparrow, R. (2012). Orphaned at conception: The uncanny offspring of embryos. Bioethics, 26(4), 173–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2010.01824.x
Suter, S. M. (2018). The tyranny of choice: Reproductive selection in the future. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 5(2), 262–300. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsy010
Tamir, S. (2023). Artificial intelligence in human reproduction: Charting the ethical debate over AI in IVF. AI and Ethics, 3(3), 947–961. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00216-x
Villalba, A. (2024). Artificial gametes and human reproduction in the 21st century: An ethical analysis. Reproductive Sciences, 31(8), 2174–2183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-024-01558-z
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2025 Maurizio Balistreri, José Manuel Silvero y Revista Estudios Paraguayos
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
