Risk disparities in the globalisation of assisted reproductive technology: The case of Asia

Abstract

This paper analyses the disparities in risks associated with biomedical technology focusing on the results of assisted reproductive technology (ART). ART among biomedical technologies transferred to Asia is a representative case that reveals in its clinical use and related scientific research the global politics of technology. This study notes the global politics at work in the recognition of and reaction to such risks. While many Asian countries aggressively pursue technological development, weak legislative and administrative regulations have created various problems and controversial cases. This study asserts that risks associated with technology are characterised as social facts not natural ones or mere ‘side effects’, since technological development and risk are closely intertwined.

Keywords:

• assisted reproductive technology
• risk disparity
• ART registry
• multiple pregnancy and birth
• number of embryos transferred

Acknowledgements

Most of all, I wish to express my gratitude to all the anonymous reviewers who made critical and useful comments on this paper. Particularly, issues such as the role of experts in regulation establishment, the paradox of Asia having no registry and drug risks were brought to light by these reviewers. I also benefitted greatly from a series of discussions with Professor Chia-Ling Wu of National Taiwan University in developing my research questions into broader Asian issues. I would like to extend special thanks to Professor Wu. This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2010-330-H00010).

Notes

1. For example, complete enumeration surveys have been working in Australia (1980–83 data, British Medical Journal (1985), 291(6503), 1160; 1979–86 data, Lancet (1987), II(8572), 1392), the UK (1991–94 data, Lancet (1996), 348(9039), 1402; 1991–95 data, New England Journal of Medicine (1998), 339(9), 573), Israel (1982–89 data, Human Reproduction (1992), 7, 1159; 1989–94 data, Fertility and Sterility (1998), 70, 240), Belgium (1993–2002 data, Human Reproduction Update (2005), 11, 3), France (1986–90 data, Fertility and Sterility (1995), 64, 746), Finland (1991–93 data, Human Reproduction (1995), 10, 1856; 1991–93 and 1998–99 data, Human Reproduction (2002), 17, 2192), the USA (1990–91 data, Fertility and Sterility (1996), 65, 361; 1996 data, Journal of the American Medical Association (1999), 282(19), 1832), Sweden (1982–95 data, Lancet (1999), 354(9190), 1579; 1982–95 data, Lancet (2002), 359(9305), 461; 2001–2003 data, Human Reproduction (2005), 20, 4), Denmark (1994–95 data, Human Reproduction (1999), 14, 1896), and the Netherlands (1980–94 data, Human Reproduction (2001), 16, 2451).