7 ms·

This has several big implications: 1. Women will soon not need to go through the painful (and expensive) process of freezing eggs. (soon being when this is sho

This has several big implications: 1. Women will soon not need to go through the painful (and expensive) process of freezing eggs. (soon being when this is shown to be safe and equivalent to existing eggs). This will enable older women to have kids and solve some reproductive issues. 2. This will lead to a massive rise in availability of human eggs for scientific research, accelerating many fields. Lack of availability of eggs (as they get prioritized for other uses) restricts things like embryo research and other genetic analysis of human germline 3. Potentially this could lead to gay couples being able to have genetically descended children (obviously male couples here, but similar work on sperm is being done that could potentially enable lesbian couples to have kids too). This can be done as skin cells can be turned into pluripotent stem cells, and then maybe into the eggs (still some missing pieces in this process)

Zamicol 9y ago
>gay couples being able to have genetically descended children What steps are missing? I'm extremely interested in this but I've had a hard time finding more information.
- technotony 9y ago
  Producing the egg cells from pluripotent stem cells, then figuring out any immune response from growing them in the system described in this article.
tytytytytytytyt 9y ago
> This will enable older women to have kids and solve some reproductive issues. AFAIK, there's far more problems to solve than just this before older women in general can just have kids like they're 20 again.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- ehsanu1 9y ago
  Surrogate pregnancies?
  - garmaine 9y ago
    Other problems remain, such as genetic degradation and questions about epigentic content.
gwern 9y ago
> 2. This will lead to a massive rise in availability of human eggs for scientific research, accelerating many fields. Lack of availability of eggs (as they get prioritized for other uses) restricts things like embryo research and other genetic analysis of human germline Don't forget embryo selection: if you can create on demand several dozen or hundred eggs, the estimates of gains from embryo selection go from ~0.5 IQ points to 5-10 IQ points (and similarly for any other trait you might want to select for). 0.5 points is pretty trivial and no one will be beating down doors for that; 10 points, however, is a different proposition. Perhaps more importantly, it's a step towards iterated embryo selection - fertilizing, selecting, then regressing to stem cells, and progressing to sperm/eggs - and doing so for multiple generations, getting +10 points each time, for largely unbounded gains.
- bognition 9y ago
  Where are you getting the IQ boost from?
  - gwern 9y ago
    It's from my analysis of embryo selection (https://www.gwern.net/Embryo-selection https://www.gwern.net/Embryo-selection). But you can do it without the complications by treating it as an order statistic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_statistic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_statistic): what is the expected maximum of a sample of 5 Gaussians (rough current average egg harvest) vs 20 or 100 Gaussians, where the Gaussian is N(0, 0.5 * sqrt(polygenic score))? (Since you are selecting on the polygenic scores, not the unknown adult scores, and 0.5 because you are selecting from embryos which are 50% related ie. siblings.) X_5 vs X_100 is a big difference. (To save you the trouble, it's +1.16SD vs +2.51SD; the difference is actually much bigger than it looks because you lose so many embryos in the IVF process, so it's really more like X_1 vs X_196 or +0.56 vs +2.48SD, but to be more precise, you need to go into the weeds of PGSes and per-stage losses in IVF etc. But the order statistics are a good starting point.)
- scarmig 9y ago
  What's the reason for thinking the gains are unbounded? AFAICT we could reasonably suppose something like 50 IQ points is within reach via embryo selection, but what would a something like a 300 IQ even mean, and even if it does mean something tangible, why should we assume that's biologically reachable in the same way that a 150 IQ would be?
bradleyjg 9y ago
> This will lead to a massive rise in availability of human eggs for scientific research, accelerating many fields. It will also mean a massive rise in the availability of human eggs for turning into embryos, which in turn will mean the ability to be much more selective about which embryos to to implant during IVF. Currently egg harvesting is such an arduous process that embryos can only realistically be selected for viability and a handful of generally fatal diseases. When you are choosing 1 out of 7-10 embryos, you can't be all that picky. But between having access to hundreds of eggs, sperm obviously not being an issue, the ever decreasing cost of genomic sequencing, and the ever increasing knowledge of how specific genes relate to traits, parents undergoing IFV could start to apply many selection criteria. That wouldn't be genetic engineering in the classic sense, nothing would be available that wasn't in one of the parent's DNA, but it would get a lot of the way there. Edit: If I was going to be beaten to the punch by anyone on this subject, I'm happy it was gwern.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- jcadam 9y ago
  And one day soon children conceived the 'natural' way will be at a disadvantage. Reminds me of Gattaca...
  - zerostar07 9y ago
    it's happening already
    - aldoushuxley001 9y ago
      No it's not. I don't know of any non-naturally born people who have an advantage. Currently, people born via IVF are more likely to be born prematurely and with increased risks of mental and physical problems. We may be there soon, but we're definitely not there yet.
      - 9y ago
tropdrop 9y ago
> Potentially this could lead to gay couples being able to have genetically descended children (obviously male couples here, but similar work on sperm is being done that could potentially enable lesbian couples to have kids too) I would actually argue that the latter (lesbian couple->kids) will become feasible first - https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/feb/25/lab-created-sperm-breeds-healthy-mice-raising-hopes-for-end-to-male-infertility https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/feb/25/lab-created-...
russdill 9y ago
I don't think you read the article. The process is the growing of pre-existing egg cells from ovarian tissues into mature egg cells.
jedberg 9y ago
> This will lead to a massive rise in availability of human eggs for scientific research Depending on where you are, that's not really a problem. We did IVF, and we still have an embryo left over. When we asked about donating it to science, they told us not to bother because it would just be thrown away, since they already have too many in California (the embryos can't cross state lines apparently).
mrfusion 9y ago
Don’t you still have to do egg harvesting? Or where are these coming from?
Alex3917 9y ago
> This will enable older women to have kids and solve some reproductive issues. Under 35, the success rate for IVF is ~40%. Between 35 and 42, it's about 10%. After 42 it's about 4%. Each time you try it costs around 20k, albeit sometimes the first one or two tries are subsidized by insurance or state grants. And there are also all sorts of health risks to both the mother and baby. So even if you can safely create unlimited eggs at a nominal cost, I don't see this having any practical effect on family planning. (Other than as a treatment for certain infertility issues.) Given that it takes around two years to have a baby, pragmatically you're still going to ideally want to start having kids no later than 35 - 2 * (desired kids), at least for the foreseeable future.
- GordonS 9y ago
  20k! Here in the UK, the NHS will pay for up to 3 attempts (only if you haven't been able to conceive naturally), but even if you pay privately the cost is around 4k USD.
  - adventured 9y ago
    More like $7,000. Your point still stands of course. US healthcare is typically twice as expensive as equally high income nations. Adjust the $7k UK figure up to US income levels, you get around $10k. So that 2x rate remains pretty accurate. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/ivf/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/ivf/
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
fastball 9y ago
Do we really want to increase the human races ability to procreate? We already have enough children that have been abandoned or live in terrible conditions. The earth is overpopulated as it is. This has many implications, not the least of which that the simplest way to reduce carbon emissions is fewer people.
appleflaxen 9y ago
Using strips of ovarian tissue removed in a biopsy, it represents an advance on IVF (in vitro fertilisation), where a mature egg is fused with a sperm in the lab and the fertilised embryo is implanted. Eggs aren't frozen, but it still sounds like a painful and expensive process.
sametmax 9y ago
Which probably means we will reduce the combinations of genes we use, more and more. And hence, lessen the genetic diversity of our specie. What can go wrong ?

Zamicol 9y ago

>gay couples being able to have genetically descended children What steps are missing? I'm extremely interested in this but I've had a hard time finding more information.

technotony 9y ago
Producing the egg cells from pluripotent stem cells, then figuring out any immune response from growing them in the system described in this article.

tytytytytytytyt 9y ago

> This will enable older women to have kids and solve some reproductive issues. AFAIK, there's far more problems to solve than just this before older women in general can just have kids like they're 20 again.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ehsanu1 9y ago
Surrogate pregnancies?
- garmaine 9y ago
  Other problems remain, such as genetic degradation and questions about epigentic content.

gwern 9y ago

> 2. This will lead to a massive rise in availability of human eggs for scientific research, accelerating many fields. Lack of availability of eggs (as they get prioritized for other uses) restricts things like embryo research and other genetic analysis of human germline Don't forget embryo selection: if you can create on demand several dozen or hundred eggs, the estimates of gains from embryo selection go from ~0.5 IQ points to 5-10 IQ points (and similarly for any other trait you might want to select for). 0.5 points is pretty trivial and no one will be beating down doors for that; 10 points, however, is a different proposition. Perhaps more importantly, it's a step towards iterated embryo selection - fertilizing, selecting, then regressing to stem cells, and progressing to sperm/eggs - and doing so for multiple generations, getting +10 points each time, for largely unbounded gains.

bognition 9y ago
Where are you getting the IQ boost from?
- gwern 9y ago
  It's from my analysis of embryo selection (https://www.gwern.net/Embryo-selection https://www.gwern.net/Embryo-selection). But you can do it without the complications by treating it as an order statistic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_statistic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_statistic): what is the expected maximum of a sample of 5 Gaussians (rough current average egg harvest) vs 20 or 100 Gaussians, where the Gaussian is N(0, 0.5 * sqrt(polygenic score))? (Since you are selecting on the polygenic scores, not the unknown adult scores, and 0.5 because you are selecting from embryos which are 50% related ie. siblings.) X_5 vs X_100 is a big difference. (To save you the trouble, it's +1.16SD vs +2.51SD; the difference is actually much bigger than it looks because you lose so many embryos in the IVF process, so it's really more like X_1 vs X_196 or +0.56 vs +2.48SD, but to be more precise, you need to go into the weeds of PGSes and per-stage losses in IVF etc. But the order statistics are a good starting point.)
scarmig 9y ago
What's the reason for thinking the gains are unbounded? AFAICT we could reasonably suppose something like 50 IQ points is within reach via embryo selection, but what would a something like a 300 IQ even mean, and even if it does mean something tangible, why should we assume that's biologically reachable in the same way that a 150 IQ would be?

bradleyjg 9y ago

> This will lead to a massive rise in availability of human eggs for scientific research, accelerating many fields. It will also mean a massive rise in the availability of human eggs for turning into embryos, which in turn will mean the ability to be much more selective about which embryos to to implant during IVF. Currently egg harvesting is such an arduous process that embryos can only realistically be selected for viability and a handful of generally fatal diseases. When you are choosing 1 out of 7-10 embryos, you can't be all that picky. But between having access to hundreds of eggs, sperm obviously not being an issue, the ever decreasing cost of genomic sequencing, and the ever increasing knowledge of how specific genes relate to traits, parents undergoing IFV could start to apply many selection criteria. That wouldn't be genetic engineering in the classic sense, nothing would be available that wasn't in one of the parent's DNA, but it would get a lot of the way there. Edit: If I was going to be beaten to the punch by anyone on this subject, I'm happy it was gwern.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jcadam 9y ago
And one day soon children conceived the 'natural' way will be at a disadvantage. Reminds me of Gattaca...
- zerostar07 9y ago
  it's happening already
  - aldoushuxley001 9y ago
    No it's not. I don't know of any non-naturally born people who have an advantage. Currently, people born via IVF are more likely to be born prematurely and with increased risks of mental and physical problems. We may be there soon, but we're definitely not there yet.
    - 9y ago

tropdrop 9y ago

> Potentially this could lead to gay couples being able to have genetically descended children (obviously male couples here, but similar work on sperm is being done that could potentially enable lesbian couples to have kids too) I would actually argue that the latter (lesbian couple->kids) will become feasible first - https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/feb/25/lab-created-sperm-breeds-healthy-mice-raising-hopes-for-end-to-male-infertility https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/feb/25/lab-created-...

russdill 9y ago

I don't think you read the article. The process is the growing of pre-existing egg cells from ovarian tissues into mature egg cells.

jedberg 9y ago

> This will lead to a massive rise in availability of human eggs for scientific research Depending on where you are, that's not really a problem. We did IVF, and we still have an embryo left over. When we asked about donating it to science, they told us not to bother because it would just be thrown away, since they already have too many in California (the embryos can't cross state lines apparently).

mrfusion 9y ago

Don’t you still have to do egg harvesting? Or where are these coming from?

Alex3917 9y ago

> This will enable older women to have kids and solve some reproductive issues. Under 35, the success rate for IVF is ~40%. Between 35 and 42, it's about 10%. After 42 it's about 4%. Each time you try it costs around 20k, albeit sometimes the first one or two tries are subsidized by insurance or state grants. And there are also all sorts of health risks to both the mother and baby. So even if you can safely create unlimited eggs at a nominal cost, I don't see this having any practical effect on family planning. (Other than as a treatment for certain infertility issues.) Given that it takes around two years to have a baby, pragmatically you're still going to ideally want to start having kids no later than 35 - 2 * (desired kids), at least for the foreseeable future.

GordonS 9y ago
20k! Here in the UK, the NHS will pay for up to 3 attempts (only if you haven't been able to conceive naturally), but even if you pay privately the cost is around 4k USD.
- adventured 9y ago
  More like $7,000. Your point still stands of course. US healthcare is typically twice as expensive as equally high income nations. Adjust the $7k UK figure up to US income levels, you get around $10k. So that 2x rate remains pretty accurate. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/ivf/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/ivf/
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

fastball 9y ago

Do we really want to increase the human races ability to procreate? We already have enough children that have been abandoned or live in terrible conditions. The earth is overpopulated as it is. This has many implications, not the least of which that the simplest way to reduce carbon emissions is fewer people.

appleflaxen 9y ago

Using strips of ovarian tissue removed in a biopsy, it represents an advance on IVF (in vitro fertilisation), where a mature egg is fused with a sperm in the lab and the fertilised embryo is implanted. Eggs aren't frozen, but it still sounds like a painful and expensive process.

sametmax 9y ago

Which probably means we will reduce the combinations of genes we use, more and more. And hence, lessen the genetic diversity of our specie. What can go wrong ?