Making and disposing of life's ‘starting materials’: A focus group study of attitudes concerning reproductive scarcity and abundance in in vitro gametogenesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores stakeholder attitudes toward gametes and embryos in the context of in vitro gametogenesis (IVG), a new stem cell technology whose future clinical application would entail the production of eggs and sperm in vitro. A key concern raised by the prospect of making gametes from originally non-reproductive body cells has been its potential exacerbation of the issue of "surplus" cryopreserved embryos through the production of unprecedented numbers, with an allied devaluation of human reproductive materials. However, this concern has not been empirically investigated. In this study, focus groups composed of individuals representative of the constituency most likely to be impacted by IVG were asked to respond to scenarios in which the relative abundance and scarcity of gametes and embryos were changed by these new procedures. Respondents who had experienced involuntary childlessness and/or previously accessed in vitro fertilization (IVF) technology drew on these experiences to reason their way through future scenarios in which cells could be more fluidly exchanged over the somatic-reproductive boundary. Unfettered abundance was not found to be a key issue for these respondents. Rather, concerns focused on questions of technological control over outcomes in ARTs, cultural scripts about the preciousness of eggs moderated by concordance between the gender or the donor and the sex of the gamete, and in vitro gametes and embryos as embodiments of the often painful and costly process of attaining them.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".