Reproductive technologies, social revolution and ... mouse sperm? (1 Viewer)

[kami]

First live births from artificial sperm - Times Online

Seven mouse pups, six of which survived to adulthood, were born in a laboratory in Germany after scientists fertilised eggs with sperm that had been grown from embryonic stem (ES) cells.

The births provide the strongest evidence yet that it will eventually be possible to use ES cells to treat infertile men who make no sperm of their own.

Stem cell grafts could repair malfunctioning testes, or artificial sperm could be grown outside the body for IVF, while therapeutic cloning would ensure that the ES cells used carried the patient’s own genes.

Other experiments have suggested that artificial eggs can be made in the same way, though no offspring have yet been born.

In the longer term, it may even prove possible to produce sperm from female stem cells, and eggs from male ones, allowing homosexual couples to have children that bear the genes of both parents.

This would also enable a single man or woman to provide both the sperm and eggs needed to create an embryo, so that a person could essentially mate with himself or herself.

This seems like an epic step, imo, in the development and revolution of what it means to reproduce especially in light of the Japanese creating female chicken sperm cells.

This leads me to think of some of the literature I've been reading from sociologists in the last few weeks which basically contends that you can tell a society is having to reinvent what it is when the traditional language no longer fits and we have to develop entirely new kinds of words to understand things. The crux of it is that in the past these revolutions have come from agriculture, industrial technologies and communication technologies but that now reproductive technologies are going to push us to a point where we will experience a revolution as to what sexuality and gender means with contraceptives being the first of these.

Some of the hypotheticals put forth included:

• A woman, with an infertile husband, who used her father-in-law's sperm to fall pregnant with the question of whose child it would truly be with a still involved family.
• A nun who advocated that sisters should charitably offer their wombs in surrogacy and whether this was in keeping with their retention of chastity or even virginity in some cases.
• A parent who had undergone transition after the birth of their child and the question of what their parental identity was.

So, the crux of this discussion is, do you think reproductive technologies have been the cause of a revolution in our society and do you think they will continue to do so? And what part do you think the production of female sperm and artificial sperm, as detailed in the experiments above, will play in our future?

 

[Kwayera]

Very, very cool.

Of course, recent technology has already gone a long way to rendering males obsolete in humans as well:

British scientists 'create sperm from stem cells'

A team of British scientists claimed Wednesday to have created human sperm using embryonic stem cells, in a medical first that they say will lead to a better understanding of fertility.

Researchers led by Professor Karim Nayernia at Newcastle University and the NorthEast England Stem Cell Institute (NESCI) developed a new technique that allows the creation of human sperm in the laboratory.

They stressed that the sperm, developed from stem cells with XY chromosomes (male), would not be used for fertility treatment, as this is prohibited by British law and in any case is not their main interest.

"This is an important development as it will allow researchers to study in detail how sperm forms and lead to a better understanding of infertility in men -- why it happens and what is causing it," said Nayernia.

"This understanding could help us develop new ways to help couples suffering infertility so they can have a child which is genetically their own."

He said more investigation was needed to decide whether the so-called in-vitro derived (IVD) sperm, could be used as a fertility treatment, for example for boys who became infertile after receiving chemotherapy for cancer.

While such a treatment would not likely be developed for at least a decade, Nayernia said legislation should be put in place "sooner rather than later" to allow the technique to be licensed.

The team's work involved developing stem cells that had XY chromosomes into germline cells -- cells that can can pass their genetic material to future generations.

These were then prompted to complete meiosis, or cell division, which then produced "fully mature, functional sperm."

Stem cells are immature cells that can develop into different cell types.

The scientists tried to develop cells with XX chromosomes (female) in the same way but they did not progress beyond early stage sperm, called spermatagonia. The team concluded that the genes on a Y chromosome are essential for sperm maturation.

The research, published in the journal Stem Cells and Development, could also lead to a better understanding of how genetic diseases are passed on.

However, other scientists expressed doubt about the work.

"As a sperm biologist of 20 years' experience, I am unconvinced from the data presented in this paper that the cells produced by Professor Nayernia's group from embryonic stem cells can be accurately called 'spermatozoa'," said Dr Allen Pacey, senior lecturer in andrology at the University of Sheffield.

"While the cells produced may possess some of the distinctive genetic features and molecular markers seen in sperm, fully differentiated human spermatozoa have specific cellular morphology, behaviour and function that are not described here."

 

[loquasagacious]

I think it is an interesting and exciting development to be sure and raises so many new questions and issues that in my opinion it will constitute a paradigm shift which will be a revolution in how society conceptualises parenting. Gay adoption/parenting is already a substantial challenge to current concepts and the idea of true gay reproduction takes this to it's logical conclusion. In a sense it even begins to redefine gender and indeed us as a species.

The idea of single genetic material parenting really compounds this challenge to the status quo. It opens the door to what is essentially a type of asexual reproduction and single-parenting in it's purest form.

Together these developments will be a revolution in reproduction, they will begin to redefine who we are as a species and they will demand a new paradigm of parenting.

 

[Kwayera]

Together these developments will be a revolution in reproduction, they will begin to redefine who we are as a species and they will demand a new paradigm of parenting.

Which in and of itself will raise huge upheavals in how we differ ourselves from the rest of the species on the planet, I should think.

 

[loquasagacious]

The other interesting issue that this throws up is in some ways a kin to a split in homo sapiens... on the one hand you have the developed world busily undertaking same-sex and single-person reproduction and in the developing world they are stuck with traditional reproduction.

Obviously not a real species split as the groups could interbreed however interesting nonetheless

 

[kami]

The other interesting issue that this throws up is in some ways a kin to a split in homo sapiens... on the one hand you have the developed world busily undertaking same-sex and single-person reproduction and in the developing world they are stuck with traditional reproduction.

Obviously not a real species split as the groups could interbreed however interesting nonetheless

Would that really be much of an effect with this? I mean, our own genetic make up would presumably unchanged as it's the mechanism for procreation which is affected rather than the end product.

 

[loquasagacious]

Would that really be much of an effect with this? I mean, our own genetic make up would presumably unchanged as it's the mechanism for procreation which is affected rather than the end product.

Agreed that biologically it's not a split - but socially it seems to be a relatively large split.

 

[kami]

Agreed that biologically it's not a split - but socially it seems to be a relatively large split.

I don't really follow. How does it affect the social divide between developed and third world nations?

 

[loquasagacious]

It exacerbates the existing split. We would no longer have the same concept of reproduction/family/gender identity.

 

[kami]

It exacerbates the existing split. We would no longer have the same concept of reproduction/family/gender identity.

oic.

Actually, that would raise some interesting issues in the development of contemporary religious institutions since many revolve around the family and procreation but these roles would not be preserved in the developed world as they may be in a more poverty stricken country. It would be interesting to see how immigrants in that age would respond upon leaving a third world country to enter into a more developed one. Probably with shock, horror, self-imposed segregation and fundamentalism.

 

[Uncle]

thank god i was not born this way.
because i was born with rather mix of genetic and surrogete.

 

[KFunk]

I find the idea of the redundancy of men quite fascinating. Also, if chromosomes were divided up in the right way (so as to avoid double copies and the attendent risk of genetic disorders) it should be possible for a woman to clone herself using such technology.

 

[loquasagacious]

I don't think it's just the redundancy of men we're talking about here.... more like the redundancy of sex (for procreation). A female-only pregnancy does have a head start on the man-only pregnancy because they would typically have at least one womb available for the actual pregnancy. But how long will it be before an artificial womb of some kind is available?

The other thing which that raises is that once an artificial womb is available would women choose to use it? Seems altogether more convenient than actually being pregnant....

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

If you create an artificial sperm, and artificial egg, both from artificially constructed human DNA and mitochondria, then merge them inside an artificial whomb, what do you get?

 

[kami]

I have to admit, the thing that I find most interesting about this is who it furthers the divide between procreation and sex. We started seeing that happen when contraceptives were developed and distributed on a wider level and that certainly contributed to notions of progressive femineity and sexuality. I can only imagine this type of thing would intensify when we come to a point where a sexual act of any kind is no longer required for procreation (as would be the case with female/artificial sperm).

It also changes things for women in a very dramatic way since traditional notions of gender are very much chained to reproduction.

Another thing is the impact this would have on trans couples; post-operative m2f persons would have issues with sperm production but also can obviously not produce eggs however this kind of technology would allow them to have biological children.

I find the idea of the redundancy of men quite fascinating. Also, if chromosomes were divided up in the right way (so as to avoid double copies and the attendent risk of genetic disorders) it should be possible for a woman to clone herself using such technology.

Would it truly be a clone though? I admit that my biology is very rusty but shouldn't all the random stuff like crossing over and whatnot mean different parts of our DNA could be expressed in a self-child? It'd have all the same genes but ... they'd build the child differently or something.

If you create an artificial sperm, and artificial egg, both from artificially constructed human DNA and mitochondria, then merge them inside an artificial whomb, what do you get?

Well, even the artificial sperm and eggs have to be derived from biological material so it'd just be a standard person. It's mechanisms which change, not the result.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

Well, even the artificial sperm and eggs have to be derived from biological material so it'd just be a standard person.

Not true. These days we can create DNA, lipids and proteins (all the building blocks of cells) from non-biological sources such as carbon, hydrogen, phosphates, and oxygen.

And of course it'd be a standard person. But you're not my target audience. Religious nuts who claim biology is 'playing god' and who believe souls exist are my targets. :mad1: