Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42052943›Full record

ArticleBioethics2026

Technologized Reproduction in Space: A Space-Bioethical Case for Assisted Procreation.

Maurizio Balistreri, Konrad Szocik

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Maurizio BalistreriDISTU (Department of Humanities: Languages, Literature and Cultural Heritage), University of Tuscia, Viterbo, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-5704-7377
Konrad SzocikDepartment of Social Sciences, University of Information Technology and Management in Rzeszow, Rzeszow, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-7262-3915

Funding

National Science Centre, Poland UMO-2024/53/B/HS1/01295
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the increasing feasibility of space colonization, the issue of reproduction in space is becoming more relevant. As new settlements on the Moon, Mars, and other celestial bodies emerge, ensuring generational continuity will be essential for the survival and growth of these communities. The challenges of space living, such as extreme environmental conditions and limited resources, raise critical questions about the practicality and morality of reproduction in these contexts. This paper argues that in extraterrestrial space, human reproduction based on assisted reproductive technologies is morally preferable to sexual reproduction. We explore the benefits of technologies like embryo selection, genome editing, and artificial wombs, emphasizing their potential to mitigate the risks posed by space environments. There is no doubt that the idea of human reproduction based solely on technology is controversial and counterintuitive, even if it were to be applied only, at least initially, for the continued existence of the human population settled in space. Nevertheless, there are strong rationales for the fact that non-sexual reproduction is not only beneficial, but also has moral advantages. Finally, we also examine the social and political implications of a society that moves beyond sexual reproduction, including the reduction of gendered oppression and the redefinition of family structures. We suggest that these advancements could transform reproduction not only in space but also on Earth, potentially reducing injustices caused by human biology and reshaping societal norms and traditional view on family.

Indexed as

Extraterrestrial EnvironmentReproductionReproductive Techniques, AssistedSpace FlightGene EditingHumansartificial wombbioethicsfeminismgenome editingreproductionspace exploration

Identifiers

PMID42052943
PMCPMC13293275

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.