There is a growing global demand for human eggs for the treatment of sub-fertile women and for stem cell-related research. This demand provokes concerns for the women providing the eggs, including their possible exploitation, whether they should be paid, whether they can give properly informed consent and whether their eggs and bodies are becoming commodified. However, few of the debates have benefitted from insights from the women themselves. We address this gap in knowledge by reporting on a study investigating women’s views and experiences of a scheme in which they can volunteer, in their capacity as fertility patients, to ‘share’ their eggs with researchers and receive a reduction in in vitro fertilisation fees. We focus our discussion on the question of exploitation, a concept central to many sociological and ethical interests. In brief, our analysis suggests that while interviewees acknowledge the potential of this scheme to be exploitative, they argue that this is not the case, emphasising their ability to act autonomously in deciding to volunteer. Nonetheless, these freely made decisions do not necessarily take place under circumstances of their choosing. We discuss the implications of this for egg provision in general and for understandings of exploitation.

From 1 April 2005, UK law was changed to allow children born through gamete donation to access identifying details of the donor. The decision to abolish donor anonymity was strongly influenced by a discourse that asserted the 'child's right-to-know' their genetic origins. Under the current regulation, if would-be parents want to receive treatment in the UK, they have no option but to use gametes/embryos from identifiable donors. For a majority, this also means that they will be on lengthy waiting lists due to the donor shortage. Interestingly, the voice of would-be parents -those who would be most affected by a contraction in donor supply and would carry the burden of informing children of their origins, should they so choose-were not heard during the donor anonymity debate or thereafter.Adopting a social constructionist approach, this thesis studies removal of donor anonymity as a social problem and examines why would-be parents remained silent during the public debate.There are two major steps taken: first, examining the donor anonymity debate in the public realm through media presentations, and secondly investigating would-be parents' reactions through ethnographic studies: a virtual ethnography study and interviews.

On 1 April 2005, with the implementation of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (Disclosure of Donor Information) Regulations 2004, United Kingdom law was changed to allow children born through gamete donation to access details identifying the donor. Drawing on trends in adoption law, the decision to abolish donor anonymity was strongly influenced by a discourse that asserted the ‘child's right to personal identity’. Through examination of the donor anonymity debate in the public realm, while adopting a social constructionist approach, this article discusses how donor anonymity has been defined as a social problem that requires a regulative response. It focuses on the child's ‘right to personal identity’ claims, and discusses the genetic essentialism behind these claims. By basing its assumptions on an adoption analogy, United Kingdom law ascribes a social meaning to the genetic relatedness between gamete donors and the offspring.

Genome editing enables very accurate alterations to DNA. It promises profound and potentially disruptive changes in healthcare, agriculture, industry, and the environment. This paper presents a multidisciplinary analysis of the contemporary development of genome editing and the tension between continuity and change. It draws on the idea that actors involved in innovation are guided by "sociotechnical regimes" composed of practices, institutions, norms, and cultural beliefs. The analysis focuses on how genome editing is emerging in different domains and whether this marks continuity or disruption of the established biotechnology regime. In conclusion, it will be argued that genome editing is best understood as a technology platform that is being powerfully shaped by this existing regime but is starting to disrupt the governance of biotechnology. In the longer term is it set to converge with other powerful technology platforms, which together will fundamentally transform the capacity to engineer life.