The Future of Human Reproduction project has been an exciting interdisciplinary journey, bringing together insights from literature, language, psychology, design, law, and ethics to explore the challenges and opportunities in the rapidly evolving field of reproductive technologies. To find out more, please see our blogs here

This is the fourth in the series of The Future of Human Reproduction Research Showcase webinars, and this session will feature a presentation of case studies, followed by a facilitated discussion.

Zindzi Cresswell, the Partnership and Communications Manager for The Future of Human Reproduction project has organised, and leads this webinar discussion with Professor Tsekleves. This webinar contains some visual prompts so we do recommend you watch the webinar video, here: Can we anticipate ethical, legal, and social dilemmas in emerging technology? - YouTube

Contents:

• Welcome and Introduction
• Examples of Speculative Design
• What is Speculative Design?
• Just a quick note on Theory
• Some examples of What If questions
• Case Studies and Examples

Questions and comments from the webinar chat:

1. “How do you or your teams balance your own biases or subjectivities when designing speculative outputs to garner people’s thoughts?” In other words, how do you put those biases aside?

2. “I like the analogy of speculative design and thought experiments; however, your examples seem to involve more than just thought, including emotions. Does that lead to possible knock-on effects, good or bad?”

3. “In empirical research, the big difficulty is presenting future technology neutrally without leading participants, while balancing what we do not yet know."

4. “What counts as “speed” when looking at technological change, and how do you measure it? What is the basis for saying the rate of change is greater now than 50 years ago or longer? Similarly, how do you know how much change people can adapt to, and where that threshold lies, as per your graph?”

5. “How do you ensure you select a wide-ranging representation of viewpoints for researching a subject such as ectogenesis?”

6. “Why do you think reproduction is a particularly good case for the speculative design approach? Is reproduction a special case for speculative design compared to, say, aging?”

Please note that hat this transcript has been edited for clarity and structure, while maintaining the tone and language of the original auto-generated content from the Teams webinar.

Welcome and Introduction

Zindzi:

Hello everyone, thank you very much for joining us. We're going to start the session now. We've got a good number already in the room, and I’m sure more will join over the next couple of minutes. But we promise to finish on time, so we will start on time today as well.

So today, thank you again for joining us. You are here hopefully for the fourth in our Future of Human Reproduction research showcase webinar series. These have been a series of 45- to 60-minute webinars featuring members of the Future of Human Reproduction team plus special guests.

Past sessions have included:

• IVG — what issues does it raise?
• What’s literature got to do with it and how literature shapes our views of reproductive technologies?
• And our most recent one was about how a child's development can be shaped before birth.

These recordings are all available on our website — which I’ll put into the chat — and also on our YouTube channel. The purpose of this series is to share with you the methods taken by this team to develop interdisciplinary work to explore the ethical, legal, and social issues related to advances in reproductive technology.

Today, I’m joined by Professor Emmanuel Tsekleves, a co-investigator of the Future of Human Reproduction project.

He will be discussing, as you can see on today's screen, Can we anticipate the ethical, legal, and social dilemmas in emerging technology?

Before I hand over to him, please note this is a recorded session and it will be available soon after. I invite you to use the chat if you have any comments or want to ask questions throughout the webinar. We will aim to respond to these at the end of this session, and if there are some things we don’t get to, we’ll follow up again soon afterwards.

Thanks again to you all for joining us today, and thanks to the Wellcome Trust for supporting this research.

I’d now like to hand over to Emmanuel so we can really get to the meat of it. Thank you.

Emmanuel:

Great, thank you very much, Zindzi, for the introduction. Good afternoon, everyone. I hope you’re having a great day.

The plan for today is to have a brief overview of speculative design, which we’ll approach through an example and an exercise. Then, we’ll quickly look at some case studies.

I hope most of today’s session will be more of a discussion and Q&A, so please feel free to post your questions through the chat. We’ll look at those afterwards.

I’m looking forward to the discussion we’re going to have.

The matter of fact is that our world is not just rapidly changing — it is actually being dramatically reshaped and is starting to operate differently in so many realms at the same time. This reshaping is happening faster than we have yet been able to reshape ourselves, our leadership, our institutions, our societies, and our ethical choices, of course.

So that is what’s going on with scientific and technological progress.

As you can see, we have two lines in this diagram: time versus the rate of change. We have human adaptability represented by one curve, and technology represented by another.

This illustrates the rate at which humanity — individuals and society — actually adapt to changes in our environment. This could be in terms of technology, geophysical changes like the Earth warming and cooling, or social changes.

Many major changes were driven by society, and we have adapted — or at least most of us have, some more or less comfortably — but we adapted.

The good news is that we’ve gotten a little bit faster at adapting over the centuries. For example:

• A thousand years ago, it probably took two to three generations to adapt to something new.
• By the early 1900s, that time dropped to about one generation.
• Today, we might be so adaptable that it only takes 10 to 15 years to get used to something new.

But that may not be good enough anymore because the accelerating speed of scientific and technological innovations can really outpace the capacity of the average human being and our societal structures to adapt and absorb them.

With that in mind, I’d like to focus your attention on this dot here in the diagram. This dot illustrates an important fact: even though humans and societies have steadily adapted to change on average, the rate at which technology changes is accelerating so fast that it is now beyond the average rate at which most people can absorb such changes.

Many of us cannot keep up anymore, and that is causing cultural angst. It is also preventing us from fully benefiting from all the new technology that is coming along every day.

As you know, scientific advances today are bringing shifts that governments and legislation are scrambling to keep up with.

A crude example: smartphone technology gave rise to Uber. But before the world managed to figure out how to regulate ride-sharing, that regulation was already becoming obsolete. Now companies are developing self-driving cars, and the use of drones is the next thing that may make current regulations obsolete as well.

Examples of Speculative Design

Starting with that context, I’d like now to dive into speculative design. I’ll show you some examples, and I’ll open the floor because I want to hear people’s responses and reactions.

So, this is a piece of what I would call not necessarily speculative design but more discursive design.

I’d like to ask you all to have a quick look at this. I don’t know if we have any German speakers here — if you understand German, I’ll translate afterwards, but maybe you get some hints anyway.

What do you think is happening here? Any thoughts on what is going on in this visual?

You can also use the chat — though I might need some help from Zindzi, as I cannot view it while sharing my screen.

Thoughts going on? Nothing as yet? Okay, here we go—Miranda’s put [in the chat] the tampon tax. Yes, exactly.

Actually, just to translate the German text of the book’s tagline, it translates as “a book against tax discrimination.” So, this is a commercial, responsible, discursive design from 2019 in Germany. It won a grand prix in PR from a company that obviously sells organic tampons.

What’s interesting is that tampons in Germany were taxed—at that time—at 19% as a luxury item, whereas books were taxed at 7%. So simply by repackaging tampons as part of a book, the company instantly reduced the tax—and therefore the cost of the product—by 12%.

More importantly, it created a discussion—a discussion that even made it to the debating chambers of the German government. In fact, it led to changes in the tax law because, of course, it raised issues about discrimination and what it meant for women in 2019 in Germany to be simply taxed for being women, with a premium tax rate.

So, it generated discussion and had an impact, but that was not necessarily the aim behind the project.

Now, I’m going to show you a different image, and again, feel free to share your responses.

I’m not sure how clear the visual is, so I’ll describe it: we see what looks like a mammoth fillet, and there is a sticker on the cellophane covering the product that says Saber-tooth fillet, 97.8, with a QR code and some more information, plus the brand of a known company. You see it presented on someone’s kitchen counter.

With that in mind, I’d like to open the discussion here: what type of technologies do you think would have been discovered or developed to be able to present this product on someone’s kitchen table? Any thoughts on what technologies would be needed to make that possible?

Chat responses:

• Cloning
• In vitro meat

Emmanuel:

Yes, definitely good responses.

Now, looking at this image of the product, what does it tell us about the future where these technologies are available and this product exists? What can we tell about this future by looking at this project—not just in terms of technology, but also society and environment?

Chat responses:

• People might still want to eat meat
• Reproduced meat for consumption?
• This is normalised
• Is it part of a food shop at a supermarket?
• Food shortage?
• Global famine?

Emmanuel:

Great, these are all brilliant.

In fact, I do this exercise with my students, and they get very similar responses to what you’ve just mentioned.

We’re looking at a future where there must be a reason why this product is available, apart from just the technology existing. It doesn’t look like a premium product based on the packaging—it looks normalized.

It raises questions like: why have we resorted to prehistoric meat? Does it mean that current cattle have gone extinct? Or maybe it’s 3D-printed meat? What kind of society has that?

One interesting remark from a student recently was: "It’s fascinating that we have technology capable of cloning and developing this meat from DNA extraction and other cool tech, yet we still serve it in crappy plastic." That probably tells us either we don’t care about the environment in that future or the environmental issues have been resolved—or we just don’t know.

This is the great thing about speculative design—it allows us to explore these kinds of futures based on a single prototype and ask all these questions.

Just to share a bit more about this specific product and project: it was created by Bosch, not as an academic research project but more as part of a marketing campaign.

They tested it with leaflets, and in the slides we’ll share later, you’ll be able to visit the link and watch a video. They created these dummies—fresh meat from a time long ago—juicy dinosaur legs, fresh mammoth steaks, and tender sabre-tooth fillets marked with their label. They placed the “fresh stone age meat” in the freezer sections of supermarkets for a week.

That’s how they surprised many customers with their message: “Keeps food fresh for much longer.”

Thanks to a QR code, curious people were directed to a special website for more information. Leaflets and supermarket announcements were used to attract attention. In six days, they reached approximately 75,000 people.

I won’t go into the marketing details, but what’s important is how powerful it was to take these dummies into the public—these were connected to digital assets and socialized, meaning they could explore different reactions.

In research, we do this in a more controlled way, but in simple terms, this is what speculative design is.

What is Speculative Design?

Speculative design is an approach that enables thinking about the future both prospectively and critically. It raises various “what if” questions, as we’ve seen with some of the examples about the future. For example: What if change is needed?

So, what if things were different? What if we change in these particular ways? Then it imagines what happens and creates scenarios around these what if questions with tangible and often realistic objects we call prototypes. Designers can fabricate an experience of that possible future.

And that’s the important thing—you can actually experience it. You can sample part of the future; it’s like bringing a snapshot of a potential future into the present to critique it.

For us, speculative designs are really thought experiments that encourage us to think differently about the world. They can also provoke debate, as we’ll see with some examples. It’s not necessarily science fiction—it creates worlds, and through props and prototypes that are carefully designed, it suspends disbelief about change.

Experts, different stakeholder groups, and the public can actually explore this.

Speculative design is quite a lot about alternate presents, which we develop by adding or subtracting things as we explore different futures.

Of course, you have the concepts of utopias and heterotopias—or sorry, dystopias—where you present futures where everything is amazing, or things have gone very critically wrong. But what we find much more helpful in research is the alternative present.

It’s not necessarily a forecasting tool or forecasting method—there are other forecasting methods—but it uses some of those approaches as part of its methodology.

Its main aim is not to predict futures but to explore, critique, and reflect on different visions of the future.

If you Google ‘speculative design’ or pick up any book or journal on the topic, you’ll come across this cone diagram. It basically represents the idea that if we think of the future in terms of cones:

• On the outer edge, we have the possible—the really far future, 25 to 50 years out—things that might happen but for which we currently don’t have the knowledge or technology yet. This is closer to science fiction.
• As you move inward, you get the possible in a more immediate sense—things that could happen with current laws, emerging technologies, or social trends.
• Then the probable—more of a linear extension of where we are now, within the next five years. This is what’s very likely to happen.

Traditional speculative design sits between the probable and the projected, sometimes moving into the possible to explore alternative or preferable futures—what some might want to happen.

That raises questions about what we mean by preferable, because traditionally, speculative designs are created by researchers or design practitioners with particular educational backgrounds and upbringings. That challenges the notion of what is preferable.

Keep that in mind, because we use speculative design differently in some of our projects to deal with this.

Just a quick note on theory:

When thinking about speculative design and futures, it’s very useful to also look at the past. The past affects how we view the future, especially when considering emerging technologies. Our interactions and experiences with previous technologies and their impact on our lives help us better understand the future and the impact it will have.

What we find most effective is not focusing on the sci-fi version of the possible, but on the mundane—what’s likely to happen. If you were to “domesticate” those emerging technologies, what legal, ethical, social, or economic implications should we be asking about?

Briefly, you need some ingredients for speculative design. If you think of it like a recipe for a dish you want to create, you need:

• An understanding or inspiration from several trends
• What if questions, which guide the types of futures you explore
• The objects or artefacts you create
• A plan for who and how you release those objects, engaging specific groups

Some examples of What If questions:

Let’s say we look at urban transportation infrastructure, a topical subject. We see trends like e-scooters, bike sharing, autonomous shuttles in some European cities, and the integration of micro-mobility.

Some plausible what if questions could be:

• What if we converted 30% of city parking spaces into micro-mobility hubs?
• What if we implemented dynamic pricing for shared mobility?

These are plausible because they’re happening right now.

Now, for topics closer to our project on human reproduction technologies, there’s a trend of stem-cell-derived gametes that allow the creation of eggs and sperm from skin or blood cells.

This raises lots of what if questions:

• What if postmenopausal women could generate new youthful eggs from their skin cells, extending natural fertility indefinitely?
• What if genetic material from deceased individuals could be converted into functional gametes, allowing reproduction decades after death?
• And what if stem cell–derived gametes became significantly less expensive than traditional IVF treatments, therefore creating two-tier access to genetically optimized reproduction?

There are many more what if questions like these. You can take each one and develop future worlds around artefacts that you can then explore with specific stakeholder groups.

I promise I’ll show you some case studies shortly.

Case Studies and Examples

Case Study: Speculative Design in Malaysian Policy Development

A few years ago, just before the pandemic, we worked on a project funded by the UK. It focused on embedding speculative design methods to support Malaysian government agencies in how they generate policies. At the same time, it explored how community groups and NGOs might use such tools to engage groups who typically don’t participate in policymaking.

The Malaysian government was very interested in speculative design. We collaborated with them, developing a grant proposal funded by the UK, which allowed us to work for about a year.

During this project, we trained champions from NGOs, community groups, and various ministries within the Malaysian government—mostly civil servants, as you can see in the photos. They attended hands-on speculative design training courses to learn how to use and implement these methods.

Engaging Senior Citizens in Malaysia

We then engaged with citizens, specifically senior citizens, who were the target group for this project. These groups facilitated workshops where senior citizens co-created speculative design concepts.

This was an iterative process across multiple workshops. This approach aligns with a challenge in traditional speculative design: who defines preferable futures? Instead of making assumptions, we co-created these futures with the people directly affected—in this case, Malaysian senior citizens. The ideas and concepts came from their visions of futures they wanted to see or avoid.

Example: Sugar-Free Malaysia 2050

One of the issues they explored was sugar consumption in Malaysia—a significant health concern at the time.

They created speculative future newspaper headlines for the year 2050. On the left, a headline shows Malaysia as a sugar-free country following their proposed sugar-free policy. On the right, the impact of not implementing the policy was depicted.

Example: Senior Citizen–Friendly Mobility

Another major concern was mobility for senior citizens. Public transport wasn’t designed with them in mind. Often, younger, more able passengers didn’t respect older passengers’ needs.

The group imagined a future bus system that used current and emerging technology tailored specifically for seniors.

For example:

• The bus recognizes passengers by tapping a card linked to their profile and age.
• Seniors get priority seating.
• If a younger passenger refuses to give up a seat to a senior, a green pillow on the seat inflates to gently push the younger passenger out—an idea they called the “inflating pillow.” (Some initial ideas involved spikes, but those were discarded.)

Although we couldn’t develop a real bus prototype, we created policy documents, visual guides, and even hired actors to shoot videos depicting the user experience of this system in Malaysia.

Video Highlights (Actors’ Testimonials)

• “It’s really easy to travel. It can help improve our lives—more convenient, safer, and comfortable.”
• “It’s very good for senior citizens, especially those with disabilities.”
• “The whole process is faster and cashless. We don’t have to stop to give coins or get change.”
• “For many seniors, using these technologies can be confusing. For our grandparents, bigger pictures and louder alerts would help.”

Social Media & Public Engagement

We shared these videos on social media to generate reactions and explore different perspectives. We brought all materials back to the original groups and also invited other stakeholders to discuss and explore the concepts further.

This approach proved so popular that we were later asked to run additional training sessions with civil servants across Southeast Asia.

Impact

The power of using tangible artefacts and socializing these futures allowed us to generate debates about the economic implications of these policies in Malaysia. While this project didn’t dive deeply into the ethical aspects, it opened new pathways for discussion.

In fact, we were also invited to present this method to ministers, in a committee chaired by the Vice Prime Minister at the time, for the Ministry of Women and Community Development—which was a partner in this project.

For those of you interested in finding out more, when I share the slides, you’ll be able to download PDF versions of these—what we call little books—a handy guide with more case studies and visuals. These cover the project as well as the use of speculative design.

Briefly, the project “The Future of Human Reproduction” uses speculative design as one of its core methodologies. It’s something the team has been exploring extensively. For those not familiar with the project, we are looking at three different types of human reproduction technologies. There are different video series that explore these in more detail, which I highly recommend viewing.

Speculative design is very interesting because it helps us push and develop new methods and research agendas in interdisciplinary ways to tackle ethical implications of a range of future reproduction scenarios. For instance, the creation of embryos from artificial eggs and sperm opens up possibilities such as same-sex, multiplex, or singular genetic parenting.

Then, there is ectogenesis—the complete or partial gestation of a fetus outside the human body, in an artificial womb. This creates children who, in a sense, have not been born in the usual way we understand the term.

Our team involves researchers from different disciplines: linguistics, literature, ethics, philosophy, developmental psychology, law, and design. As part of our work, we’ve been exposing colleagues to these methods through a series of workshops. They have been developing their own speculative designs.

Zindzi mentioned before that the previous webinar was by one of our child developmental psychologists. She came up with an idea for a website app that can tell you, if you were to use ectogenesis technology (carrying a fetus in an artificial womb), what the potential impact might be for the children born that way.

Other colleagues have explored how some religious groups might use these technologies and some of the ethical and social challenges that could arise. Some colleagues developed future newspaper-format scenarios imagining specific groups being conned into using such technologies.

I also want to mention that we have linguists on the team. One created a speculative design artefact—something more hands-on that you can actually wear—demonstrating how technology could be portable and allow different interactions with a fetus in an artificial womb.

We’re still developing many more speculative artefacts, which you will be able to read about and see on our website.

Before opening the floor to questions, I want to share some key lessons from what we’ve presented so far.

First, we see and believe that speculative design can seed understanding, uncover assumptions, foster empathy in some cases, and identify new directions for policy and research—especially when applied to divisive questions raised by technologies like human ectogenesis and genetic editing.

Speculative design provides a unique framework for mapping issues by catalyzing and capturing interdisciplinary perspectives from different fields across science, social science, and the humanities.

These methods help clarify concerns critical for anticipatory governance. Our premise is that speculative design fictions provide what we call an inclusive “third space,” where researchers across sciences and humanities can jointly analyze and explore sensitive, complex issues without immediately confronting deep disciplinary divisions or policy advocacy positions.

As mentioned at the start, we are very thankful to the Wellcome Trust for making this work possible.

I’m going to open the floor for questions. I hope we have some questions, but if not, I have a lot prepared! Zindzi will let us know if any come through.

Questions

Zindzi:

I’ve asked people to write questions in the chat if they have them, so a few might come in shortly. You also now have the ability to unmute your mic, so if you want to ask Emmanuel directly, please feel free.

Let's give it a minute—maybe we can warm people up.

Thank you. I know some people on the delegate list work on ethics, though not all, so I wanted to ask them: How do you see the gap between technology development and ethical or legal frameworks affecting your field or research? Are there gaps between tech development and ethical frameworks that impact your projects?

Zindzi:

I haven’t got a response yet, but I do have a question I’d like to ask. Thank you.

We have a question here in the chat from Victoria Atkins:

“How do you or your teams balance your own biases or subjectivities when designing speculative outputs to garner people’s thoughts?” In other words, how do you put those biases aside?

Emmanuel:

Our approach, as presented through the project in Malaysia (Project Policy Asia), involves engaging with a number of groups—citizen groups or professional groups. Actually, some of the speculative designs and futures being developed are not ours. What we then do is take those concepts and build or visualize them to bring them to life so people can experience aspects of those futures.

Any more questions?

Zindzi:

There’s one here:

“I like the analogy of speculative design and thought experiments; however, your examples seem to involve more than just thought, including emotions. Does that lead to possible knock-on effects, good or bad?” —Thomas Schramme.

Emmanuel:

Yes, it’s about using speculative design artefacts as prompts for thought experiments, enabling engagement. When dealing with sensitive topics, we don’t do what I showed with the Sabre-Tooth Fillet example (which was open to the public). Instead, we hold carefully facilitated workshops with specific groups to engage, seek feedback, and encourage discussion.

When topics are sensitive or may cause strong emotional responses, we always have relevant professionals present during workshops and afterwards in case anyone experiences a strong emotional reaction.

For example, about ten years ago, I worked with senior citizens in the UK on a sensitive project, partnering with Age UK. Their own professionals supported the workshops as we explored speculative designs.

Zindzi:

Thank you. We’ve got a response and a follow-up question from Victoria:

“In empirical research, the big difficulty is presenting future technology neutrally without leading participants, while balancing what we do not yet know. Thanks for your response.”

Emmanuel:

Yes, that’s true. It’s about how you socialise the artefact and how it’s designed. You might want to design speculative artefacts to trigger specific debate or discussion. This is where working with linguists has been useful, developing narratives around speculative designs.

Zindzi, you had a question?

Zindzi:

Yes, I have a couple. I hope you noticed the thumbs-up earlier. Here’s my question based on an earlier comment:

“What counts as “speed” when looking at technological change, and how do you measure it? What is the basis for saying the rate of change is greater now than 50 years ago or longer? Similarly, how do you know how much change people can adapt to, and where that threshold lies, as per your graph?”

Emmanuel:

There are a lot of questions there!

I’ll start with the latter ones. The graph I showed comes from a book on tech innovation providing statistics about the rate of change and how technology is now outpacing other factors. So, it’s not just anecdotal.

The first question about what counts as speed when looking at technological change—how do we measure it? We usually focus on the future we want to explore rather than speed alone. For example, do we want to look at the next five years and what is likely to happen, or do we want to look at the next ten years and see what technologies are emerging?

We borrow some forecasting techniques, such as trends analysis, including the PESTEL framework, which provides guides on technological and other types of trends. We consult these to see what is emerging and where technologies stand.

We also use the innovation hype framework, also known as the Amara model. This model shows that when a technology is initially researched and picked up by media, there is a hype curve—a lot of attention and promise about its potential uses. After commercialization, hype declines, and the adoption rate stabilizes into a straighter line.

The Amara model is a very useful tool; every couple of years, the group behind it tracks emerging technologies and maps them on this curve.

All done! Thank you.

Zindzi:

We have a couple more questions, if that’s okay.

One from Wendy Suffield:

“How do you ensure you select a wide-ranging representation of viewpoints for researching a subject such as ectogenesis?”

Emmanuel:

That’s a very good question. Ectogenesis is a sensitive topic, touching many facets of society. In the project in Italy, we did stakeholder mapping to identify different relevant groups.

We mapped groups that might be beneficiaries or might be affected by human reproduction technologies like these. The examples I showed you were developed more as thought experiments by our team—they were not developed by any specific citizen group. Just to emphasize that, in case I hadn’t made it clear already. Thank you very much.

Zindzi:

We have another question from Mianna Meskus:

“Why do you think reproduction is a particularly good case for the speculative design approach? Is reproduction a special case for speculative design compared to, say, aging?”

There are several examples that engage with reproduction in speculative design.

Before I answer, I’ll check—Mianna, did you mean the book Speculative Everything? I’ll put the link in the chat so people can see what you’re referring to. Thanks.

Emmanuel:

Good question. Bruce Sterling is one of the forefathers of speculative design. It just so happened that the Wellcome Trust project was about human reproduction.

We’ve shared another case study on a very different topic, and we’ve also done projects looking at food. So, I wouldn’t say speculative design is exclusive to human reproduction; we use it across many topics.

Some topics, however, are more sensitive or complex, and they can lead some design practitioners to create more provocative speculative designs. We try to avoid that by focusing more on what we call the mundane and everyday aspects within the next five years. While we do explore the medium-term future, we’re more interested in the near future.

Zindzi:

Great, thank you very much.

We have a couple more minutes before we close. I’ve invited people to submit any final questions here, and then Emmanuel, any final thoughts or comments you’d like to share before we wrap up?

Emmanuel:

Just to mention again, we’ll be sharing the video recording and the slides. For those of you who haven’t seen or are unaware of the previous webinar series, it’s great to check them out because they link specifically with the second case study I presented.

Zindzi:

Excellent, thank you very much—and you’ve done my job for me there, Emmanuel, so thanks!

Just to say, the content will be shared with everyone who’s registered and on our contact list soon after. Thanks again to the Wellcome Trust, as Emmanuel mentioned.

We have the recorded webinars available on our website. Our last webinar in this series is coming up next month, which relates strongly to what Emmanuel discussed today.

I’ve put the registration link in the chat. The focus of this webinar will be:

How does thinking about the future help us see today’s legal and bioethics issues differently?

In my own words, it’s basically hearing from two other team members about how they engaged with speculative design after it was introduced to them by Emmanuel and Andrew Darby from the team, and how it has influenced their work and thinking about ethical, legal, and social (ELS) issues raised by advancing reproductive technologies.

We’d love to see you there.

Thanks again for joining us this afternoon. It’s been great to have the questions come through and see strong engagement throughout.

If you have any feedback or thoughts, you’re always welcome to share.

In the meantime, we’ll send out those details, and we look forward to seeing you in June for our next event.

Thank you again, Emmanuel—it’s been a fantastic and interesting session.

Emmanuel:

Thanks very much. Thanks for joining.

~

Related Blogs

• 

  How Did Thinking About the Future Help Us See Today's Legal and Bioethics Issues Differently?

• 

  Exploring Tomorrow: Insights from Our Future of Human Reproduction Milestone Event

• 

  Artificial Wombs: The Reproductive Future or a Sci-fi Nightmare?

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed by our bloggers and those providing comments are personal, and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of Lancaster University. Responsibility for the accuracy of any of the information contained within blog posts belongs to the blogger.