Additionally, these children are messengers from the future in terms of [choosing genetic material] and it is very much an open question about whether this is a benefit for them. And as you guys are going to grapple with fertility questions and expectations, the choices are going to be very tough. The Nobel Prize Sperm Bank is sort of a beta version of the choices kids now in college will make when it comes time to consider their own fertility and families.

THC: Is eugenics dead?

DAP: Eugenics has transformed from the pubic enterprise it had been during the first half of the century to a private enterprise controlled by the self-interest of parents.

THC: What do you think of the movement to make the names of donors available to the children of their sperm at age 18?

DAP: I think registration of sperm donors is probably the right idea. It will cause a huge reduction in the amount of people who are willing to be sperm donors, which is the downside. But these kids are a party to contracts between the parents and the sperm bank that have not allowed them to make these decisions. We live in a genetic age, and the current situation is not fair to children who want to know who their genetic parents, so I think registry is probably a good idea.

—Staff writer Scoop A. Wasserstein can be reached at wasserst@fas.harvard.edu.