We are on the brink of a mind-bending technological revolution that will completely alter the omnipresent case of infertility. Through an emerging technology – In vitro gametogenesis (IVG) – biologists are experimenting with turning a human skin or blood cell into a gamete (sperm or egg). The cell is reverse-engineered through genetic reprogramming to an induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) state. When a cell is at its pluripotent state, it can be adapted into any type of cell, it’s basically an embryonic stem cell; this allows for the biologists to transform it into a gamete. Currently achievable in mice, IVG is in trial for success in humans and holds great promise for various new possibilities in the fields of regenerative and reproductive medicine.
Who can benefit from IVG?
The social implications of this technology are positively endless. If and when this is applicable for humans, it will allow for same-sex couples to have children who are biologically related to both of them; allow for single individuals to have a child without the genetic contribution of another individual (donor); allow for “multiplex” parenting – where more than two people can have a child with all of their genetics. Besides its implications for humans, IVG will help endangered animals procreate, removing them from the endangered species list. But, the process of IVG will be different for every species’, as each cell’s components vary.
Though there are numerous positive implications of IVG, it raises vexing ethical and social policy challenges that need to be addressed by scientists, engineers, faith leaders and bioethicists.
“There’s something troubling about an inexhaustible supply of gametes that can be fertilized into an inexhaustible supply of embryos” – Dr Eli Adashi of Brown University
As of January of 2021, IVG has only successfully occurred in mice in 2016, and in 2018 Japanese scientists have produced immature human eggs from human blood cells; these gametes are not viable for fertilization but this breakthrough highlights a great step towards IVG for humans.
The Ethical Considerations of IVG
Theoretically, with IVG only requiring a skin or blood cell, gametes of ex-partners, deceased people and celebrities could be produced. A fan of Leonardo DiCaprio might want to have his child, all they would need is a few follicles of his hair or an unwashed t-shirt. This could even turn into a profiting business for waiters and hairdressers; they can start selling celebrities used spoons or hair follicles online. In a few decades, all of Los Angeles will be swarming with descendants of Leonardo DiCaprio!
A common ethical dispute within the field of reproductive technology is the value of human life and where it starts. IVG could ultimately produce an exponential amount of embryos – “embryo farming” – that could be destroyed or discarded. This raises various concerns from the religious communities. Mass production of human embryos will exacerbate concerns about the devaluation of human life. Already, under the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, passed by Bill Clinton in 1996, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services prohibits funding for public laboratories that are using the creation of human embryos for research. Historically and currently, major political parties which rely on support of major conservative religions in the US have not been supportive of funding research of IVG and related sciences. This is because of their belief that life begins at conception and any harm or alteration of an embryo is murder and/or going against God’s intentions.
Human enhancement is another ultramodern field in science; reproductive and human enhancement technologies overlap significantly. Just like with IVF, multiple embryos are created and one or two – depending on the couple – are implanted in the uterus; this allows for preimplantation genetic diagnosis – if finances allow. With IVG, depending on how much money is invested, a wide selection of embryos can be created which the parents can then select from. Thus exacerbating human enhancing concerns about parents selecting the genetic traits for their future child. This leads to the question of the key issue that we face – should we use technologies to provide biological parenting rights to all and also eradicate harmful conditions or are we encouraging some form of eugenics by which we are creating prescriptive babies.
Traditionally, parentage consists of two people, and that is all. But with IVF, surrogacy, and artificial insemination, laws have been modified to recognize the genetic, gestational, and legal parentage resulting in one or two people. IVG will introduce “multiplex” parenting allowing for more than two people to be genetically related to the child. How will parentage be split here? If one parent contributed more genetic material to the child, do they hold greater rights and duties? If the relationship amongst the multiple parents dissolves, how must the law approach the legal parentage rights of the child? More questions will continue to arise if surrogacy and other reproductive technologies are to be combined with IVG.
