Video recording and transcript for the Future of Human Reproduction book discussion with Evie Kendal on her new book Science Fiction and the Ethics of Artificial Wombs.

Discussed by Evie Kendal (Bioethicist and Public Health Scientist, Swinburne University of Technology), Stephen Wilkinson (Principal Investigator, Future of Human Reproduction Project, Lancaster University) and Georgia Walton (Research Collaborator, Future of Human Reproduction Project, Glasgow University). Organised by Zindzi Cresswell.

Please note that 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. It can be read alongside the related recording.

Access the recorded content on the Future of Human Reproduction YouTube channel.

Introductions

---

STEPHEN WILKINSON [2:18]

Shall we start off by just briefly saying who we are? So I'm Stephen Wilkinson, Professor of Bioethics at Lancaster University, and also I'm Principal Investigator on the Future of Human Reproduction project, which is a Wellcome-funded grant programme. And then, well, Evie, why don't you introduce yourself, because you are our guest.

EVIE KENDAL [2:42]

Hi. I'm Dr Evie Kendal from Swinburne University of Technology, where I work as a bioethicist and public health scientist.

GEORGIA WALTON [2:52]

And I'm Georgia Walton, so I'm Research Associate on the Future of Human Reproduction project, with a specialism in English literature.

STEPHEN WILKINSON [3:01]

Great. Well, thanks Evie for being with us and for giving us the chance to have an advance sneak peek, if you like, at your book. I certainly really enjoyed looking at it and definitely want to say there's so much in there I really want to go back and think through again. And also you mentioned so many interesting sources, most of which I have to confess I haven't read. I'd love to read them and get into the stuff, so there's obviously so much reading and scholarship that's gone into it. So, you know, well done. Looking forward to seeing the physical copy.

Just to kick us off for our audience who obviously haven't had the same opportunities we had, could you start by saying:

how did you get into this topic? Artificial wombs, science fiction, artificial wombs – what brought you to this point?

EVIE KENDAL [3:47]

I studied science fiction as an undergraduate student and was very interested in the bioethical discussions that often come up in SF. And then when I was studying bioethics, I was really interested to see just how common it is to have clinical vignettes where we strip out all the ambiguity, we strip out everything that makes it human and interesting, and we try to distil it to very cold principles. Instead of the human element, the really rich storytelling that we see in SF, I found that the stories that were told in bioethics were intentionally simplified to the point where you couldn't really relate to the characters. And that was part of the goal – to make it more universal. But I thought that the science fiction way of doing bioethics actually kept what was really human and relational about these vignettes.

So the ethical dilemmas that people were supposed to be working through were stripped out of everything that makes them complex in the real world. So I understand why that's done in the classroom – to simplify the concepts. But then as you work as a professional bioethicist, you want to bring back that relationality, you want to bring back that complexity. And I think science fiction is a really good way to do that.

STEPHEN WILKINSON [5:02]

Yeah, no, certainly. I mean, yes. As an ethicist myself, the case studies that years ago I would have used in teaching and come across were extremely short. And sometimes people were called X and Y – they didn't even have names. So they were very, very stripped down. Yeah. So I totally see where that's coming from.

Was there any particular novel or film that made you think, 'Wow, that's so enlightening about bioethics' that inspired you from that side?

EVIE KENDAL [5:30]

Well, when I think about artificial wombs in particular, or ectogenesis, or whichever term we want to use, what really fascinated me was there was this period of time where a lot of feminist science fiction authors were writing about this technology as a potentially liberating technology. So you had authors like Marge Piercy in Woman on the Edge of Time, and Joanna Russ in The Female Man – these authors were presenting artificial wombs as something that could potentially free women from the burden of pregnancy and childbirth, and allow for more equal parenting arrangements.

But then there was also this other strand of feminist science fiction that was more cautious, that was presenting artificial wombs as something that could be used to control women's bodies, to take away women's reproductive autonomy. So you had this really interesting debate happening within feminist science fiction about whether this technology would be liberating or oppressive. And I think that's a debate that we're still having today in bioethics about emerging reproductive technologies.

So for me, science fiction was really valuable because it allowed us to explore both sides of that debate, to think through the potential benefits and the potential harms of these technologies before they even exist. And that's something that I think is really valuable for bioethics – to be able to think through these questions in advance, rather than just reacting to technologies after they've already been developed.

GEORGIA WALTON [7:35]

I think that's really interesting, and I wonder if we could talk a bit more about the different representations of artificial wombs in science fiction. Because I think, as you say, there's this range from utopian to dystopian representations. And I'm interested in how you navigate that in the book, because obviously there are some very famous dystopian representations – Brave New World is probably the most well-known. But then there are also these more utopian representations that you've mentioned.

How do you approach that range of (dystopian-utopian) representations in the book?

EVIE KENDAL [8:15]

Yeah, so Brave New World is definitely the elephant in the room when it comes to artificial wombs and science fiction. It's the text that everyone knows, it's the text that everyone references. And it is a very powerful cautionary tale about the potential misuse of reproductive technologies. But I think what's interesting is that Huxley was writing in the 1930s, and he was writing in a very specific social and historical context. He was writing at a time when eugenics was mainstream, when there were very real concerns about social engineering and the control of reproduction.

But we're now in a very different context. We're in a context where we have much more emphasis on reproductive autonomy, on individual choice, on diversity. So I think we need to be careful about just taking Brave New World as the definitive statement on artificial wombs, because it's a product of its time. And while it raises important concerns that are still relevant today – concerns about commodification, about social control, about inequality – we also need to balance that with other representations that might be more optimistic or more nuanced.

So in the book, I look at a range of texts, from the 1920s through to the 2020s, and I try to show how representations of artificial wombs have changed over time, how they've reflected different social concerns and different social values. And I think that's really important, because it shows us that there's no one 'correct' way to think about this technology. There are multiple possible futures, and science fiction helps us to imagine those different futures and to think through their implications.

STEPHEN WILKINSON [9:55]

Yeah, that's really interesting. And I suppose one of the things I was thinking about when reading your work is the relationship between the fiction and the reality. Because obviously with something like artificial wombs, we're talking about a technology that doesn't fully exist yet – partial ectogenesis exists to some extent in the form of neonatal intensive care, but full ectogenesis doesn't exist. So in some ways, the fiction is all we have to think with at the moment. But then there's also a danger that the fiction can shape how we think about the real technology when it does emerge. So…

how do you navigate that relationship between fiction and reality in the book?

EVIE KENDAL [10:40]

Yeah, that's a really important question. And I think one of the things I try to emphasise in the book is that science fiction is not predictive – it's not trying to tell us what will happen. Instead, it's exploratory. It's helping us to think through different possibilities, different scenarios, different ethical questions. So when we read Brave New World, we shouldn't be asking, 'Is this what will happen if we develop artificial wombs?' Instead, we should be asking, 'What concerns does this text raise? What values does it challenge? What kind of society does it critique?'

And I think that's true for all science fiction. Whether it's utopian or dystopian, it's not trying to give us a roadmap for the future. It's trying to help us think through the present. So when feminist authors in the 1970s were writing about artificial wombs as potentially liberating, they weren't necessarily predicting that artificial wombs would be liberating. They were critiquing the present-day inequalities in reproduction and imagining what a more equal future might look like.

So I think science fiction is most valuable when we use it as a tool for thinking, rather than as a source of predictions. It helps us to identify concerns, to explore different perspectives, to challenge our assumptions. And that's really valuable for bioethics, because bioethics is all about thinking through complex ethical questions where there aren't easy answers.

GEORGIA WALTON [12:20]

That's really helpful. And I think one of the things that comes through really strongly in the book is the idea that science fiction can help us to ask better questions. Not necessarily to provide answers, but to help us frame the questions in more productive ways. And I wonder if you could talk a bit about that – about

how (does) engaging with science fiction can help bioethicists to ask better questions about emerging technologies?

EVIE KENDAL [12:50]

Yeah, absolutely. I think one of the limitations of traditional bioethical analysis is that it tends to focus on individual cases and individual decision-making. So we ask questions like, 'Should this person be allowed to use this technology?' or 'What are the rights and wrongs of this particular decision?' But science fiction often asks bigger questions about social structures, about power, about inequality, about the kind of society we want to live in.

So when we read something like The Handmaid's Tale, for example, it's not just asking, 'Is this particular reproductive arrangement ethical or unethical?' It's asking much bigger questions about reproductive control, about bodily autonomy, about power and gender and society. And I think those bigger questions are really important for bioethics, because individual decisions don't happen in a vacuum. They happen within social structures, within systems of power and inequality.

So science fiction can help us to zoom out, to think about the bigger picture, to ask questions about what kind of society we want to create. And I think that's really valuable, especially when we're thinking about emerging technologies like artificial wombs, because these technologies have the potential to reshape society in fundamental ways. So we need to be asking not just 'Should individuals be allowed to use this technology?' but 'What kind of society will we create if this technology becomes widespread? How will it affect existing inequalities? Who will have access? Who will benefit? Who might be harmed?'

And science fiction is really good at helping us to think through those kinds of questions, because it takes us out of the individual case study and into imagined futures where we can see the social implications play out.

STEPHEN WILKINSON [14:50]

Yeah, I think that's a really important point. And it connects to something I was thinking about when reading the book, which is about the role of imagination in bioethics. Because I think sometimes bioethics can be quite limited in its imagination – it tends to focus on what is, rather than what could be. Whereas science fiction is all about imagining different possibilities.

I wonder if you think that bioethics could benefit from being more imaginative, from thinking more expansively about different possible futures.

EVIE KENDAL [15:25]

Absolutely. I think imagination is crucial for bioethics, especially when we're dealing with emerging technologies. Because if we only think about what is, we're always going to be reactive. We're always going to be playing catch-up. But if we can use our imagination to think about what could be, then we can be more proactive. We can start thinking about ethical questions before the technology even exists. We can start thinking about what kind of safeguards we might need, what kind of policies we might want to put in place.

And I think science fiction is a really valuable tool for that kind of imaginative work. Because good science fiction doesn't just extrapolate from current technology – it imagines how technology might reshape society, how it might change relationships, how it might create new forms of inequality or new forms of liberation. So it helps us to think more expansively about the potential implications of emerging technologies.

And I think that's especially important with something like artificial wombs, because this is a technology that has the potential to fundamentally reshape human reproduction. If we only think about it in narrow terms – you know, 'Will it save premature babies? Will it give men the ability to gestate?' – we're missing the bigger picture. We need to think about how it might reshape our understanding of pregnancy, of motherhood, of family, of kinship. And science fiction can help us to do that imaginative work.

GEORGIA WALTON [16:50]

I think that's really important. And one of the things I found really interesting in the book is how you look at the different metaphors and language that's used to describe artificial wombs in science fiction. Because I think the language we use to describe these technologies is really important – it shapes how we think about them. And I wonder if you could talk a bit about that, about some of the key metaphors or language patterns you identified in the science fiction texts you analysed.

What are the key metaphors or language patterns you identified in the science fiction texts you analysed?

EVIE KENDAL [17:20]

Yeah, language is absolutely crucial. And I think one of the things that's really striking when you read a lot of science fiction about artificial wombs is how often the technology is described in industrial or mechanical terms. So you get descriptions of babies being 'manufactured' or 'produced', of pregnancy as a 'production process', of artificial wombs as 'factories'. And that kind of language is really revealing, because it tells us something about anxieties around commodification, around the industrialisation of reproduction.

But then you also get very different language in other texts. So in some feminist science fiction, artificial wombs are described in much more organic terms – they're seen as an extension of nurturing, of care, of community. The language is much softer, much more relational. So the same technology can be described in completely different ways depending on the values and concerns of the author.

And I think that's really important for bioethics to pay attention to, because the language we use shapes how we think. If we describe artificial wombs as 'baby factories', that's going to evoke very different feelings and concerns than if we describe them as 'alternative gestation environments' or 'assisted reproductive technology'. So we need to be really careful and thoughtful about the language we use when we're discussing these technologies.

STEPHEN WILKINSON [18:50]

Yeah, that's a really good point. And I suppose it relates to framing as well – how we frame the technology, what we compare it to, what precedents we draw on. Because I think with artificial wombs, there's often a debate about whether we should think of them as more similar to IVF or more similar to surrogacy or more similar to adoption. And different framings lead to different ethical questions and different policy implications.

EVIE KENDAL [19:20]

Absolutely. And I think science fiction is really useful for revealing how arbitrary some of those framings can be. Because in science fiction, authors can play with different framings, they can show us how the same technology might be understood in completely different ways in different social contexts. And that helps us to see that there's no natural or inevitable way to understand artificial wombs – it all depends on the social, cultural, and political context.

So for example, in some science fiction texts, artificial wombs are framed as a form of reproductive freedom – they give people more options, more control over their reproductive lives. But in other texts, they're framed as a form of reproductive control – they're used by states or corporations to control who reproduces and how. And both of those framings are plausible. They both raise important ethical questions. But they lead to very different policy implications.

So I think science fiction can help us to see that framing matters, and that we need to be thoughtful and deliberate about how we frame these technologies, rather than just accepting the first framing that comes to mind.

GEORGIA WALTON [20:30]

I think that links to something else I wanted to ask about, which is about

whose voices and perspectives are represented in science fiction about artificial wombs.

Because I think you make the point in the book that representation matters – it matters who's telling these stories, what perspectives they're bringing. And I wonder if you could talk a bit about that, about the diversity or lack of diversity in representations of artificial wombs in science fiction.

EVIE KENDAL [21:00]

Yeah, that's a really important question. And I think when you look at the history of science fiction about artificial wombs, it's been dominated by certain voices and certain perspectives. For a long time, it was mostly white, Western, middle-class authors who were writing about this technology. And that means that the concerns and perspectives that are represented tend to be the concerns and perspectives of those authors.

So for example, a lot of early science fiction about artificial wombs was written by men, and it often focused on questions like, 'Will artificial wombs mean that men no longer need women?' or 'Will this technology eliminate gender differences?' And those are interesting questions, but they're not necessarily the questions that women might ask about this technology. Women might be more interested in questions about bodily autonomy, about reproductive justice, about who controls the technology and for what purposes.

And similarly, a lot of science fiction about artificial wombs has been written from a Western perspective, and hasn't necessarily engaged with questions about global inequality, about access to technology in low-resource settings, about how this technology might intersect with existing patterns of reproductive injustice. So there are some really important perspectives and voices that have been missing or underrepresented.

But I think that's changing. We're starting to see more diverse voices in science fiction, more authors from different backgrounds bringing different perspectives. And I think that's really important, because we need a wide range of perspectives to think through the complex ethical questions that artificial wombs raise.

STEPHEN WILKINSON [22:50]

Yeah, I think that's a really important point about diversity of voices. And I suppose it also relates to the question of whose concerns are taken seriously. Because I think sometimes in bioethics, there's a tendency to dismiss certain concerns as irrational or as based on emotion rather than reason. But I think your book shows that all concerns deserve to be taken seriously, that even concerns that are expressed through fiction or through metaphor can point to important ethical issues.

EVIE KENDAL [23:25]

Absolutely. I think one of the problems with traditional bioethics is that it has this very narrow view of what counts as a rational argument. It tends to privilege certain forms of reasoning, certain types of evidence, certain ways of expressing concerns. And concerns that are expressed in more emotional or metaphorical terms tend to be dismissed as irrational or as not worthy of serious consideration.

But I think that's a mistake, because emotions and metaphors and stories are also ways of expressing ethical concerns. When someone says, 'This reminds me of Brave New World', they're not necessarily being irrational. They might be expressing a concern about social control, about inequality, about the commodification of reproduction. And those are legitimate concerns that deserve to be taken seriously.

So I think one of the values of engaging with science fiction is that it helps us to take a broader range of concerns seriously. It helps us to see that ethical concerns can be expressed in many different ways – through stories, through metaphors, through emotions – and that all of these ways of expressing concerns deserve to be engaged with thoughtfully and respectfully.

GEORGIA WALTON [24:35]

I think that's really important. And it also relates to something else I wanted to ask about, which is about

the role of affect and emotion in ethical thinking.

Because I think your book makes the case that emotions are not opposed to rationality, that they're actually an important part of ethical reasoning. And I wonder if you could talk a bit more about that.

EVIE KENDAL [25:00]

Yeah, absolutely. I think there's been this longstanding assumption in philosophy and bioethics that emotions are opposed to rationality, that if you want to think clearly about ethical questions, you need to set your emotions aside. But I think that's a false dichotomy. Emotions are not opposed to rationality – they're part of how we understand and navigate the world.

And I think science fiction is really good at showing us this, because good science fiction engages our emotions. It makes us feel things – fear, hope, disgust, wonder. And those feelings are not irrelevant to the ethical questions the fiction is raising. They're part of how we come to understand those ethical questions.

So when we read The Handmaid's Tale and we feel horror at the reproductive control depicted in that book, that's not an irrational response. That horror is pointing us towards important ethical concerns about bodily autonomy, about reproductive justice, about power and control. And we shouldn't dismiss that emotional response as irrational. We should engage with it, think about what it's telling us, use it as a starting point for deeper ethical reflection.

So I think emotions and affect are crucial for ethical thinking, and science fiction is a really valuable tool for engaging with the emotional dimensions of ethical questions.

STEPHEN WILKINSON [26:25]

Yeah, that's really interesting. And I think it connects to something I've been thinking about, which is about the limitations of the principle-based approach that dominates a lot of bioethics. Because the principle-based approach tends to be very abstract, very detached, very focused on universal principles. But I think sometimes we need a more contextual, more situated approach that takes into account the specific circumstances, the specific relationships, the specific emotions involved. And I wonder if science fiction can help with that kind of more contextual ethical thinking.

Can science fiction help with more contextual ethical thinking?

EVIE KENDAL [27:00]

Absolutely. I think the principle-based approach has its place – it can be useful for thinking through certain kinds of ethical questions. But it's not the only tool we have, and it's not always the best tool. Because ethical questions don't happen in abstract, universal contexts. They happen in specific situations, involving specific people with specific relationships and specific emotions.

And I think science fiction is really good at providing that kind of contextual, situated ethical thinking. Because in science fiction, we see characters in specific situations, navigating specific dilemmas, dealing with specific relationships and emotions. And that helps us to think about ethics in a more grounded, more human way.

So for example, when we read about a character in a science fiction story deciding whether to use an artificial womb, we're not just thinking about abstract principles like autonomy and beneficence. We're thinking about that specific character, their specific situation, their specific relationships and emotions. And that helps us to understand the complexity and nuance of ethical decision-making in a way that abstract principles alone can't capture.

GEORGIA WALTON [28:10]

I think that's really helpful. And I wonder if we could talk a bit about some specific examples from the book.

Are there any particular texts or characters that you found especially interesting or illuminating for thinking about the ethics of artificial wombs?

EVIE KENDAL [28:30]

Oh, there are so many! It's hard to choose. But I think one text that I found really interesting is Marge Piercy's Woman on the Edge of Time. Because in that novel, Piercy imagines a future society where reproduction has been completely socialised. There are no longer biological mothers and fathers in the traditional sense. Instead, children are gestated in artificial wombs, and they're raised by the whole community. And everyone in the community is involved in parenting, regardless of their gender.

And what's interesting about this is that Piercy presents this as a utopia. She's imagining this as a positive vision of the future, where artificial wombs have helped to create a more equal society. But of course, many readers might find this vision quite disturbing. The idea of taking reproduction out of women's bodies, of socialising parenting in this way – that might seem dystopian to some people.

And I think that's really valuable, because it shows us that what counts as utopian or dystopian is relative. It depends on your values, on what you think is important. So Piercy's novel helps us to think about questions like: What is the value of biological motherhood? What is the value of the experience of pregnancy? How important is genetic connection to parenthood? These are really complex questions, and there are no easy answers. But science fiction helps us to explore them.

STEPHEN WILKINSON [29:55]

Yeah, that's really interesting. And I suppose it also raises questions about parental rights and responsibilities. Because if reproduction is socialised in the way Piercy imagines,

what happens to the idea of parental rights?

Do parents still have special rights and responsibilities towards their biological children? Or does that change in a society where parenting is collective?

EVIE KENDAL [30:20]

Exactly. And I think those are really important questions for bioethics to grapple with. Because a lot of our current thinking about parental rights and responsibilities is based on certain assumptions about biological parenthood, about pregnancy and birth creating special bonds and special obligations. But if artificial wombs become widely used, some of those assumptions might need to be questioned.

Now, I'm not saying that we should necessarily move towards the kind of collective parenting that Piercy imagines. But I think we do need to think carefully about how artificial wombs might change our understanding of parenthood, and what implications that might have for parental rights and responsibilities.

GEORGIA WALTON [31:00]

I think that's really important. And it also raises questions about the role of the state in reproduction. Because in Piercy's novel, reproduction is essentially controlled by the community, by the state. And that raises concerns about reproductive freedom, about individual choice. So even though Piercy presents this as a utopia, there are also some quite troubling implications.

EVIE KENDAL [31:25]

Absolutely. And I think that's one of the values of reading a range of science fiction texts, rather than just one. Because if you only read Brave New World, you might think that artificial wombs are inevitably dystopian, that they inevitably lead to social control and the loss of reproductive freedom. But if you also read something like Piercy's novel, you see a very different vision – one where artificial wombs are presented as liberating. And then you have to grapple with the question: which vision is more plausible? What conditions would need to be in place for artificial wombs to be liberating rather than oppressive?

And I think those are exactly the kinds of questions that bioethicists and policymakers should be asking now, before the technology exists. Because we have an opportunity to shape how this technology develops, to think about what kind of governance structures we need to ensure that it's used in ways that promote justice and freedom rather than control and inequality.

STEPHEN WILKINSON [32:25]

Yeah, I think that's a really important point. And it brings us back to the question of prediction versus exploration. Because I think sometimes people look at science fiction and they ask, 'Which of these visions is correct? Which one will actually happen?' But I think the more useful question is, 'What can we learn from these different visions? What do they tell us about the different possible paths this technology could take?'

EVIE KENDAL [32:50]

Exactly. Science fiction is not about making predictions – it's about exploring possibilities. And I think that's especially valuable when we're dealing with emerging technologies, because the future is not predetermined. We have choices. We can shape how these technologies develop, how they're governed, how they're used. But in order to make good choices, we need to be able to imagine different possibilities. We need to be able to think through the potential benefits and the potential harms. And that's what science fiction helps us to do.

GEORGIA WALTON [33:25]

I think that's really helpful. And I wonder if we could talk a bit about the implications for policy. Because obviously, as you say, we have choices about how artificial wombs are developed and governed. And

I wonder what you think bioethicists and policymakers can learn from science fiction about how to approach the governance of this technology.

EVIE KENDAL [33:50]

I think there are several important lessons. First, I think science fiction shows us that we need to think beyond individual cases and individual decision-making. We need to think about the broader social implications – how will this technology affect existing inequalities? Who will have access? How might it reshape our understanding of pregnancy and parenthood? These are questions that require systemic thinking, not just individual-level analysis.

Second, I think science fiction shows us that we need diverse voices and perspectives in these conversations. We can't just have scientists and bioethicists making decisions about how this technology should be developed and used. We need to hear from women, from marginalised communities, from people who might be most affected by this technology. Because different people will have different concerns and different priorities, and all of those perspectives need to be taken into account.

Third, I think science fiction shows us that we need to be proactive rather than reactive. We can't wait until the technology exists and then try to figure out how to govern it. We need to be thinking now about what kind of governance structures we want, what kind of safeguards we need, what values we want to prioritise. And science fiction can help us with that kind of anticipatory thinking.

STEPHEN WILKINSON [35:20]

Yeah, I think those are all really important points. And I suppose the challenge is how to translate those insights from science fiction into concrete policy recommendations. Because obviously policy needs to be specific, it needs to be practical. So

how do we bridge that gap between the imaginative work that science fiction does and the concrete policy work that needs to be done?

EVIE KENDAL [35:50]

I think that's a really good question, and I don't think there's a simple answer. But I think one thing science fiction can do is help us to identify the key questions and concerns that policy needs to address. So even if science fiction doesn't give us specific policy recommendations, it can help us to see what the important issues are.

For example, science fiction about artificial wombs has repeatedly raised concerns about commodification, about inequality of access, about the potential for this technology to be used for social control. And those are concerns that any policy framework needs to address. So policy needs to include safeguards against commodification, mechanisms to ensure equitable access, protections against coercion and control.

Similarly, science fiction has raised questions about the definition of parenthood, about who has rights and responsibilities towards children gestated in artificial wombs. And those are questions that policy needs to grapple with. We need clear legal frameworks about parentage, about rights and responsibilities.

So I think science fiction can help to set the agenda for policy discussions, even if it doesn't provide the specific answers.

GEORGIA WALTON [37:00]

I think that's really helpful. And I wonder if we could talk a bit about the relationship between science fiction and public engagement. Because I think one of the things your book shows is that science fiction is already shaping public attitudes towards artificial wombs – people reference Brave New World all the time when this technology is mentioned. So

how should scientists and policymakers engage with that (shaping public attitudes)? Should they try to correct misunderstandings? Or should they engage with the concerns that science fiction raises?

EVIE KENDAL [37:35]

I think it's a bit of both. On the one hand, I think it's important to clarify when science fiction is depicting something that's very different from the real technology. So for example, the artificial wombs in Brave New World are part of a much broader system of social engineering and control. The technology itself is not inherently dystopian – it's the social system it's embedded in that's dystopian. So it's important to make that distinction.

But on the other hand, I don't think we should just dismiss the concerns that Brave New World raises. Because even if the specific details are different, the underlying concerns about commodification, about social control, about inequality – those are legitimate concerns that we need to take seriously. So rather than just saying, 'Oh, that's just science fiction, it's not realistic', we should engage with those concerns and think about how we can develop this technology in ways that avoid those dystopian outcomes.

And I think science fiction can actually be a really useful tool for public engagement. Rather than trying to shut down conversations about Brave New World, we could use it as a starting point for discussions about what kind of safeguards we need, what values we want to prioritise, what kind of society we want to create. Science fiction gives us a shared reference point, a common language for talking about these complex ethical questions.

STEPHEN WILKINSON [39:00]

Yeah, I think that's a really good point. And it actually connects to something I was thinking about earlier, which is about the role of the humanities in science and technology. Because I think sometimes there's a view that the humanities are a nice-to-have add-on, but they're not essential to scientific and technological development. But I think your book shows that the humanities – and specifically literary studies and bioethics – have a crucial role to play in helping us to think through the ethical and social implications of emerging technologies.

EVIE KENDAL [39:35]

Absolutely. I think the humanities are absolutely essential, not optional. Because technology doesn't develop in a vacuum. It develops within social contexts, and it has social implications. And if we want to develop technology responsibly, we need to be thinking about those social contexts and implications from the very beginning. We can't just focus on whether the technology works – we need to think about whether it's good, whether it's just, whether it promotes human flourishing.

And that requires humanities expertise. It requires people who can think critically about values, about power, about social structures. It requires people who can engage with diverse perspectives and complex ethical questions. And I think literary scholars in particular have a lot to offer, because we're trained to analyse narratives, to think about how stories shape understanding, to consider multiple perspectives and interpretations.

So I think the humanities need to be at the table from the very beginning when we're developing and thinking about emerging technologies. Not as an afterthought, not as a nice-to-have, but as an essential part of responsible innovation.

GEORGIA WALTON [40:40]

I think that's really important. And I wonder if we could talk a bit about what comes next, in terms of research in this area. Because I think your book makes a really strong case for the value of engaging with science fiction when we're thinking about emerging reproductive technologies. So

what do you see as the next steps? What other questions need to be explored?

EVIE KENDAL [41:05]

Oh, there's so much more to explore! I think one area that needs more attention is the intersection between artificial wombs and other emerging reproductive technologies. Because artificial wombs don't exist in isolation – they're part of a broader landscape of reproductive technologies, including IVF, genetic screening, gene editing, and so on. And I think we need to think about how these technologies interact with each other, how they might be combined, what new possibilities and new concerns that might raise.

I also think we need more work on the global dimensions of artificial wombs. Most of the science fiction I looked at was written by Western authors and reflects Western concerns. But artificial wombs would have very different implications in different parts of the world, in different cultural contexts. So we need to hear from more diverse voices, from authors and scholars from different parts of the world, thinking about how this technology might be understood and used in different contexts.

And I think we need more engagement with emerging science fiction. Science fiction is constantly evolving, constantly exploring new questions and new possibilities. So we can't just look at the classics – we need to be engaging with contemporary science fiction as well, seeing what new questions and concerns are emerging.

STEPHEN WILKINSON [42:30]

Yeah, those all sound like really important areas for future research. And I suppose also, as the technology itself develops, as partial ectogenesis becomes more advanced, there will be new questions to explore, new concerns that emerge. So this is very much an ongoing conversation.

EVIE KENDAL [42:50]

Absolutely. And I think that's one of the values of the approach I'm advocating – it's not a one-off analysis. It's an ongoing dialogue between science, technology, ethics, and literature. As the technology develops, we need to keep engaging with it, keep thinking about the ethical questions it raises, keep using our imagination to think about different possible futures.

GEORGIA WALTON [43:15]

I think that's a really good note to move towards wrapping up on. But before we do, I wonder if there's anything else you wanted to add,

any final thoughts about the book or about the relationship between science fiction and bioethics?

EVIE KENDAL [43:30]

I think the main thing I want to emphasise is that engaging with science fiction is not a luxury or a nice-to-have for bioethics – it's essential. Because science fiction is one of the main ways that our society thinks about and imagines the future of technology. When people think about artificial wombs, they think about Brave New World. When they think about artificial intelligence, they think about The Terminator or The Matrix. These narratives are powerful, and they shape how people understand and respond to emerging technologies.

So if bioethicists want to be effective, if we want to influence public debate and policy, we need to engage with these narratives. We need to understand them, take them seriously, and use them as tools for ethical thinking. We can't just dismiss them as fiction or as irrelevant to serious bioethical debate.

And I think the same is true for scientists and policymakers. If you're working on artificial womb technology, you need to understand how it's represented in science fiction, because those representations will shape public attitudes and policy debates. You can't just ignore the fiction and focus on the science, because the fiction is already shaping how people think about your work.

STEPHEN WILKINSON [44:45]

Yeah, I think that's absolutely right. And as I said earlier, I think your book makes a really compelling case for that. It shows that engagement with science fiction and literature more broadly is not optional – it's essential for good bioethics and for responsible innovation. So thank you for writing it, and thank you for this conversation. It's been really illuminating.

EVIE KENDAL [45:05]

Thank you. It's been great to talk with you both.

GEORGIA WALTON [45:10]

Before we finish, I did want to ask one more question, which is about the concept of utopia and dystopia. Because I think one of the interesting things about your book is how it complicates those categories. You show that what's utopian for one person might be dystopian for another, and that most science fiction texts contain elements of both. And I wonder if you

could say a bit more about that, about how we should think about utopia and dystopia in relation to artificial wombs.

EVIE KENDAL [45:40]

Yeah, I think that's a really important point. Because often when we talk about science fiction, we divide it into utopian and dystopian. And we tend to think of those as absolute categories – this text is utopian, this text is dystopian. But actually, I think most science fiction is more complicated than that. Most texts contain both utopian and dystopian elements, and what counts as utopian or dystopian depends very much on your perspective, on your values, on what you think is important.

So for example, as I mentioned earlier, Marge Piercy's Woman on the Edge of Time presents a society with artificial wombs and collective parenting as utopian. But many readers might find aspects of that society quite dystopian – the loss of biological motherhood, the collectivisation of reproduction. And that's not because either interpretation is wrong – it's because utopia and dystopia are relative concepts. They depend on what you value.

And I think that's really important to keep in mind when we're thinking about emerging technologies like artificial wombs. Because people will have very different responses to this technology depending on their values, their experiences, their social positions. For some people, artificial wombs might seem liberating – they might offer new reproductive options, new ways of forming families. For other people, they might seem threatening – they might raise concerns about the loss of embodied pregnancy, about commodification, about social control.

And both of those responses are legitimate. They're not contradictory – they're just reflecting different values and different concerns. So rather than trying to resolve the debate by declaring artificial wombs to be either utopian or dystopian, we need to acknowledge that complexity, acknowledge that different people will have different responses, and try to develop the technology in ways that respect that diversity of perspectives.

STEPHEN WILKINSON [47:20]

Yeah, I think that's really insightful. And it reminds me of something you said earlier in the book about how science fiction is always a commentary on the society that produced it. So when we read Brave New World, we're not just learning about Huxley's vision of the future – we're learning about 1930s anxieties about eugenics and social engineering. And when we read feminist science fiction from the 1970s, we're learning about 1970s debates about gender equality and reproductive freedom.

So I suppose the question is: what are our current anxieties? What are the questions that we're asking about artificial wombs today? And how do those reflect our current social and political context?

EVIE KENDAL [48:00]

Exactly. And I think that's a really important question. Because when we look at contemporary discussions about artificial wombs – whether in science fiction or in bioethics or in public debate – what we're really looking at is what concerns us about reproduction and society today. So when we discuss whether artificial wombs will increase reproductive options for different groups – for men, for women, for non-binary individuals, for LGBTIQ people – what we're really asking is: what options are currently denied to these groups of people now? And what can we do about that?

So if we're looking at artificial wombs as a way to improve gender equality in human reproduction, we need to ask: what is it about human reproduction now that is so fundamentally unequal? And how can we perhaps try to deal with that inequality? So it doesn't really matter if the technology ever actually becomes reality, because the questions – the social questions – are already interesting, they're already valid.

And often when we put something into outer space or we put something into the future, all we're doing is engaging in a degree of abstraction so that people don't get bogged down in their current biases, and can really think about the issues. Perhaps not in a vacuum, but certainly divorced from some of the things that keep their imagination limited when they consider it in the real world. So things like, 'Who will pay for the health insurance?' – that's not a question we ask in Star Trek, but it's a question that we ask when we're discussing a technology that's coming out on Earth. So we can take away some of that practical baggage just by projecting it into a hypothetical space environment, a hypothetical future environment, whatever it is.

But I think it's definitely always a critique on the society of the person who wrote the fiction, the person who's using the fiction. Because whether or not it's utopian or dystopian is relative to something. And one person's utopia might be another person's dystopia, but we don't change the marketing based on that specific reader. It's according to who wrote it, what time did they live in, what was considered good, what was considered bad when it came to social issues. So I think we hold on to some of that in utopian science fiction in a way that we perhaps don't in other genres.

GEORGIA WALTON [47:21]

Absolutely, yeah. Thank you.

STEPHEN WILKINSON [47:22]

Right. Thank you. Yeah. So we are drawing towards the end of our time. I have one final question, which is:

I'm sure you've presented these ideas already to a variety of different audiences – scientists, literary scholars, bioethicists, maybe even people working on artificial womb technology. What kind of reaction do you get? And does that reaction vary between those different communities? Are they receptive to this approach of bringing bioethics and literature together?

EVIE KENDAL [47:52]

Yeah, scientists working in the field definitely don't want their work associated with science fiction, and I think we can probably understand why. People working on the prototypes for partial ectogenesis do not want to be associated with the idea of full ectogenesis – they are not pursuing that goal. Scientists working in this area are only focused on saving the lives of premature infants, and they definitely don't want to be associated with anything outside of that. And part of that is just because social support for this technology is very important for it to actually go ahead. And if people are perpetually associating their work with Brave New World and The Matrix and The Island, it's going to be a very hard sell.

Whereas if they try to keep the discussion focused on premature infants, families being torn apart, presenting this as just one step from the humidicribs that we're already really quite tolerant of in society – which again, was not always the case when they first came out; people were very upset about them, they thought it was going to lead to too many infants who were otherwise sick surviving when perhaps they shouldn't. Those were some of the very old arguments that we don't give any weight to at the moment, but historically was certainly something that people were concerned about.

But now we have this humidicrib technology that is very well tolerated. People expect premature infants after a certain age to still survive, whereas historically that was never the case. If they were born prematurely, even slightly, they were very unlikely to survive. But if you can market your technology, your artificial womb, your partial ectogenesis system as just one step up from there, it's going to be a lot easier for society to accept, whereas the more extreme versions, the more hypothetical versions are likely to lead to pushback.

So scientists are definitely antagonistic toward any association with science fiction. When we look at literary scholars, they're obviously quite interested in having more engagement with their field. So I think a lot of people in literature, as long as the field is being respected, are quite welcoming.

In terms of bioethicists, there is some resistance to the slow work of engaging with literary fiction. So a lot of it is still looking at: where's the catchy one-liner that I can use as an example? Where's the one little quote that I can pull out? Who's the one character that I can just use as shorthand for something in the way that we have used historical figures like Dax Cowart, or Terri Schiavo – these characters that we have in bioethics as shorthand examples.

So I think in those cases the resistance is more to learning the tradecraft in literary studies and actually spending the time to really engage with the work, rather than just quote-mining it for something that's pithy and powerful. So different audiences do engage in different ways.

But in terms of how welcoming people are to artificial wombs in general, I find that when I speak to the public and I speak to other bioethicists, these negative science fictional references are the first thing that I hear in response. So whenever I talk about this, Brave New World, The Matrix – they come up every time. And that does indicate that these are powerful narratives that we need to be aware of their power, that perhaps we need to have counter-narratives that are also really powerful to try and give a more balanced view.

But also just being aware that just because people are citing these fictional examples doesn't mean that they haven't actually thought through some of these arguments as well. So we can't assume that everyone who's using these dystopian examples doesn't also have a rational argument behind it. But we definitely want to be focusing on what is the real argument, because there are genuine objections to this technology, and they're ones that we do need to talk about and think about ways to protect society from some of these negative outcomes.

But if people are just saying 'Brave New World' and leaving it there, then we don't know if there's a rational argument behind that. We don't know where to go from there. So that doesn't help us develop policy, it doesn't help us actually release this technology to society in a way that's safe.

STEPHEN WILKINSON [52:13]

Yeah. No, that's really interesting. Probably a good note to end on, because I mean, I think it's easy perhaps for people to think of bioethics and literature as a kind of nice-to-have add-on. But actually I think you've made it totally clear that given the relevance and weight of these kind of casual allusions to science fiction, it needs to be tackled and the quality of the understanding in that area needs to be improved. So it's not an optional extra. I think it's core to bioethical debate.

So, well, I was starting to think that anyway before I came to your book. I think it even more now. So well, thank you. It's great to talk to you and have this opportunity to read your work. We're going to hand over to Zindzi in a minute. But so thanks very much and I hope we can continue to have these conversations in future.

Related Blogs

• 

  Understanding True Interdisciplinarity: Lessons from Space Research

• 

  What can horror films reveal to us about artificial womb technology and whose lives matter?

• 

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

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.