7 ms·

Startup aims to make lab-grown human eggs from anyone's cells

76 points by lxm 3y ago

DuckFeathers 3y ago
[dead]
0dayz 3y ago
What is missing from the article is the reason the startup picked eggs. The main reason is that eggs are very expensive due to the invasive procedure needed to extract healthy one (and the after effect of the procedure whole not dangerous to my knowledge can require you to stay in the hospital to recover). But fertility medtech is something that brings I think the reoccurring question of the biggest reason we don't have kids after financial, and that is that the 1950s model isn't sustainable/compatible with modern day lifestyle and no amount of conservative lifestyleshaming will change that. And the solutions to that can only be done via social ingenuity, something I think in general there's very little research and interest in. So the question then becomes of course just what solution will be used? Will we see government run child homes? Maybe a new definition of family based more of old tradional agrarian communal family structure? Something entirely new? Who knows but I think it's equally important to figure out a new more sustainable way of raising kids than the 1950s model as it is to fertility medtech.
- bawolff 3y ago
  > Will we see government run child homes? It seems like quite a jump to skip right over daycare into gov run child homes.
  - 0dayz 3y ago
    In a way daycare is a temporary child home.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- inglor_cz 3y ago
  From the societal point of view, the difference between TFR 1,5 and 1,8 might be quite crucial. Both translate towards an aging and shrinking population, but one of the slopes is much less steep and more manageable. Putting political labels aside, the main current problem with fertility is the length of education and career start. For someone who wants to have a good job, it means spending your twenties without actually making money and obtaining property. In the 30s, when this platform is finally built, plenty of people suddenly find that their fertility is no longer sufficient to produce the desired number of offspring. Given that we are not likely to see shorter career starts anytime soon, IVF improvements seem to be the only way to partially escape this trap. Also, gametes produced by this method could be cheaper in the long run. Classical stimulation involves a lot of doctors and procedures. Maybe this process could be automated and streamlined; it matters way less if you produce "only" 400 ova out of 500 possible than if you get 4 instead of 5 ova from a living person.
  - mschuster91 3y ago
    > Putting political labels aside, the main current problem with fertility is the length of education and career start. For someone who wants to have a good job, it means spending your twenties without actually making money and obtaining property. In the 30s, when this platform is finally built, plenty of people suddenly find that their fertility is no longer sufficient to produce the desired number of offspring. A big part of that is rising life expectancy. I'm 31, and my parents (probably and hopefully) won't die until I'm 60+ myself - which means unlike the generation prior to mine that had a reasonable hope of inheriting some wealth as a kickstarter (i.e. a downpayment or a place to live without having to pay shitloads in rent), I and many others of my generation will not have that. Related to this is that so fucking many Boomers can't leave the workforce - some (more so in the US) because they literally can't afford to live otherwise, but here in the EU more because they are completely unable to imagine a life without work. The result is that all upper layers of management are filled with old people, and young ones can't rise (and earn more money). Just look at the German Mittelstand - the amount of 80+ year olds still running their companies is utterly insane.
    - inglor_cz 3y ago
- jokethrowaway 3y ago
  > 1950s model isn't sustainable/compatible with modern day lifestyle I genuinely don't understand what you mean by that (as a parent of three who knows plenty of modern parents). The whole "your life is over once you have kids" is a falsehood from my experience. I'm working less, making more and picked up all the hobbies I wanted to pick. The first 2-3 years can be more demanding but nothing like the scaremongering I've heard all my life. Sure, I spend weekends with the family and not partying in Ibiza. > Will we see government run child homes? Where do you think the clones for the Galactic Empire in Star Wars are coming from?
  - mnky9800n 3y ago
    Jango Fett DNA.
  - hotpotamus 3y ago
    That's wonderful for you that you're working less and making more; do you think that's the experience for everyone? Aren't around half of all births paid for via Medicaid these days?
  - bcrosby95 3y ago
    A lot probably depends on how much personal time you expect to get, how you spend your free time, and how serious you are about what you do in your free time.
- woleium 3y ago
  I'd have picked eggs too. Curren process costs around $10k, only works for women under 40 (ish), takes 2 weeks of being pumped full of hormones, followed by up to a week of bed rest after the retrieval operation. To be able to offer this to men and women of any age with nothing more than a cheek swab sounds like a real breakthrough.
- bradleyjg 3y ago
  What is missing from the article is the reason the startup picked eggs. The main reason is that eggs are very expensive due to the invasive procedure needed to extract healthy one (and the after effect of the procedure whole not dangerous to my knowledge can require you to stay in the hospital to recover). The other thing is that even after you go through all that you get 0-30 usable eggs. There’s steep further attrition at every step of the process. A couple is lucky to end with 5 implantable blastocysts at the end of multiple rounds of egg extraction, fertilization, and cultivation. This makes embryo selection for multiple traits very weak and not really worth it. However, if hundred or thousands of eggs could easily be produced that would open up a lot more possibilities. There’d still need to be other advances—current cultivation, cell biopsy, and genetic testing techniques would not scale—but it would very much open the door. Scientists are understandably reluctant to make this point, given the Luddism on display even at a place like HN.
- jacooper 3y ago
  > But fertility medtech is something that brings I think the reoccurring question of the biggest reason we don't have kids after financial, and that is that the 1950s model isn't sustainable/compatible with modern day lifestyle and no amount of conservative lifestyleshaming will change that. In the west, eastern cultures aren't suffering the same problems for a reason, they still value families. The west doesn't seem to do so, and i think it's one of the reasons for the "mental health pandemic".
  - 0dayz 3y ago
    Not a single Eastern European country has a replacement birth rate[0]. In fact certain Eastern European countries have a worse birth rate than western European countries[1]. It's also makes no sense to proclaim "eastern Europe" as a unified cultural group, as eastern Europe technically includes Austria, despite Austria having a modern history more aligned with western Europe due to not being part of the Warsaw bloc. And no, even if we take your argument at face value eastern European culture does not value "family" more in practice, outwards it does, but younger people in eastern Europe are just like westerners in that they are seeking out career, social and cultural fulfillment before wanting to settle down. The only real difference between west and eastern Europe is that Western Europe is aware of the issue and don't know what to do (yet), while certain eastern European countries thinks that you can duct tape conservatism with modern ideals (and cut away anything that doesn't fit their view). [0]https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/DDN-20230309-1 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/D... [1]https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Fertility_statistics#The_birth_rate_in_the_EU_decreased_at_a_slower_pace_between_2000_and_2021_than_previously https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
    - jacooper 3y ago
      I wasn't talking about eastern Europe.
- unaindz 3y ago
  It is actually a dangerous operation, probably most if not all invasive operations are.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
xbrtay 3y ago
Celebrities better walk around dressed like in a semiconductor fab lest millions of people steal their DNA. Paternity lawsuits will be fun as well. Why do modern startups always make the world a worse place to live in?
- hnhg 3y ago
  Because technology advances quickly, but human nature does not.
- Metacelsus 3y ago
  Stealing DNA isn't sufficient, you'd need to steal live cells.
  - lockhouse 3y ago
    Which still isn't particularly difficult. We shed live cells all the time.
    - inglor_cz 3y ago
      Imagine the situation when a well-meaning celebrity donates blood, someone unscrupulous steals a vial of it, and, a year later ... that poor guy has several hundred kids and is actually their mother. Could be done, if you have a reliable method of turning human white blood cells back to stem cells and then to ova.
      - analog31 3y ago
        News stories about the children of celebrities should be enough to dissuade this. But all joking aside, I suspect the main interest will be in people getting eggs from their own cells. Now sperm might be another matter, especially given the premium on being tall.
- kps 3y ago
  > Why do modern startups always make the world a worse place to live in? Well, this one has an actual product in mind, that is aimed at making its customers happy. So it beats 90% of modern startups already. Now, if they find a way to lock the children behind a subscription paywall, I'll be the first to agree with you.
Metacelsus 3y ago
I'm a scientist working in this field and I agree with Amander Clark: Conception needs to publish more data if they want people to believe their claims. The FOXL2/DDX4 immunofluorescence image in the NPR article is literally the only thing they've released. (Conflict of interest: I'm partially funded by Gameto, a competitor to Conception)
- inglor_cz 3y ago
  Seeing an expert here, this process already works in mice, right? Healthy mice were born this way. I know that "in mice" doesn't translate to "in humans" easily, but it is a proof of concept of sorts.
  - DonsDiscountGas 3y ago
    I don't think anybody denies that this is possible, but "possible" is a different status from "accomplished".
itronitron 3y ago
Just like Mom used to make.
causality0 3y ago
What's their plan on tackling the legal barriers to this? This is most definitely human experimentation. Additionally, in many countries including the US using genetically modified embryos to create a pregnancy is completely illegal. I can see this hitting the Supreme Court.
- jokethrowaway 3y ago
  Creating an egg presumably isn't
  - inglor_cz 3y ago
    In all likelihood, the ban of genetic modification of embryos will go away, too. Not tomorrow, but it will. Once we know with high probability that some genetic interventions improve lives of people a lot (say, by reducing probability of cancer or heart attack significantly), there will be an enormous pressure to introduce them.
b800h 3y ago
I'm generally very positive about science and engineering, but I'm completely sick and tired of its use in dehumanising technologies. We need to be a lot more savvy about what we consider acceptable, and politics will have to change to facilitate that.
- Mizoguchi 3y ago
  Having been through multiple rounds of IVF and knowing many couples and their stories during such long, expensive, physically and emotionally exhausting process, I believe this technology would be extremely positive for humanity.
- inglor_cz 3y ago
  From a point of view of someone who knows more than a few desperate couples, inhuman and unacceptable would be to deny them efficient treatment based on vague moralistic instincts. Would you be happy if some person denied you insulin or glasses based on the fact that they feel sick and tired about such ungodly inventions that pervert the course of nature?
  - imchillyb 3y ago
    Both diabetes and myopathy are direct results of our society. They represent cases where our technology and our living standards have caused diseases in abundance. Adding yet another easily avoidable disease to the pile seems reckless.
    - DonsDiscountGas 3y ago
      Diabetes is as old as humanity, up until a century ago it was death sentence. Our living standards have caused people to live where earlier they would have died. Here we are allowing people to reproduce where otherwise they would not be able to. All of this is a good thing.
    - inglor_cz 3y ago
      Do you mean "myopia"? Yeah, it is a civilizational disease, but from a sufferer: it is very much bearable and tolerable. I surely wouldn't like to play some sort of eugenic match against people who would rather either stop civilization in its track or prevent myopic people like me from existence for their own good, or ban them from doing anything that could possibly cause myopia in them. People suffered all sorts of aftereffects from civilizational progress, but I am optimistic in the sense that we can eventually conquer them and next generations may enjoy all the benefits without suffering harms.
_2z1p 3y ago
Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should. - Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jurassic Park)
- inglor_cz 3y ago
  Infertility is a pathology. Perhaps we should treat it as such and nothing more. No one morally sane would deny a person in a wheelchair a chance to walk, or a blind person a chance to see, just because they were born "naturally" lame or blind. Same with having kids, no?
  - lockhouse 3y ago
    We’re meddling with far larger forces here. Some fertility issues are a sort of quality control system for our species. If this technology becomes widespread it could ultimately change human evolution dramatically. If this were to supplant normal biological reproduction and reproductive organs atrophy we could eventually become wholly dependent upon technology to reproduce as a species.
    - inglor_cz 3y ago
      "Some fertility issues are a sort of quality control system for our species." I am not discounting your argument, but quality isn't a stable value. A short-sighted or asthmatic person in a hunter-gatherer society might have been useless; nowadays, they may be an excellent engineer or doctor. With technology like the one being described in the article, you actually have a much higher chance of producing viable embryos free of known genetic problems. Dependence on technology, well, it is sorta dangerous, but also unavoidable. For example, the # of people who produce their own food is very small in the West. And that small number would become almost zero if we added further constraints (as in "don't use any industrially produced chemicals in the process"). Our ancestors from 200 years ago would probably consider us unviable. (And the actual hunters and gatherers would consider them unviable. What, you depend on good weather and rain not to starve?)
    - kps 3y ago
eggybread 3y ago
[flagged]
- twoifbyseat 3y ago
  Not sure if you're serious, but if anyone's wondering, no, it wouldn't. Donor eggs are extremely expensive (thousands of dollars each). Donor sperm is practically free.
- boondoggle16 3y ago
  > unnecessary reproductive vestige Men are still really strong and have a lot of testosterone, and women will literally never be able to kill us off or enslave us due to this.
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    It's weird anyone still thinks strength of arm is the determining force-multiplier in the era of drones, nukes, or even firearms.
- MrYellowP 3y ago
  That's not sexist at all, hu?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dzink 3y ago
There is a Netflix documentary now called “King of Clones” and it describes a a very similar technology currently used to clone animals. They take skin cells, take and empty a real egg of the same or similar species of its own DNA and insert the cell DNA to copy an individual. There seems to be some small variety in the output and obviously a plethora of ethical issues (one scandal involved the main researcher asking many of his female staffers donating their eggs for human cloning). Currently the tech is used to clone prized Camels and pets for wealthy individuals. The value and risks are obviously beyond numerous. For risks specifically: 1. The surrogate developing cancers (happened to prized tigers they were trying to clone). 2. The source of the eggs (possibly what this company may be trying to do differently) 3. Sociopaths cloning themselves or being brought back to run violently suppressed societies (Including someone trying to bring back dead ones). 4. Egomaniac individuals flooding the world with copies of themselves. 5. The Technology being easy enough to replicate in less regulated locations becomes essentially unregulated. For value, assuming the startup that is trying to generate both egg and sperm succeeds, you can cure infertility and enable same-sex couples to have biological children. They have to show data that that is indeed what they have been able to achieve vs just cloning.

76 points by lxm 3y ago

[dead]

What is missing from the article is the reason the startup picked eggs. The main reason is that eggs are very expensive due to the invasive procedure needed to extract healthy one (and the after effect of the procedure whole not dangerous to my knowledge can require you to stay in the hospital to recover). But fertility medtech is something that brings I think the reoccurring question of the biggest reason we don't have kids after financial, and that is that the 1950s model isn't sustainable/compatible with modern day lifestyle and no amount of conservative lifestyleshaming will change that. And the solutions to that can only be done via social ingenuity, something I think in general there's very little research and interest in. So the question then becomes of course just what solution will be used? Will we see government run child homes? Maybe a new definition of family based more of old tradional agrarian communal family structure? Something entirely new? Who knows but I think it's equally important to figure out a new more sustainable way of raising kids than the 1950s model as it is to fertility medtech.

bawolff 3y ago
> Will we see government run child homes? It seems like quite a jump to skip right over daycare into gov run child homes.
- 0dayz 3y ago
  In a way daycare is a temporary child home.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
inglor_cz 3y ago
From the societal point of view, the difference between TFR 1,5 and 1,8 might be quite crucial. Both translate towards an aging and shrinking population, but one of the slopes is much less steep and more manageable. Putting political labels aside, the main current problem with fertility is the length of education and career start. For someone who wants to have a good job, it means spending your twenties without actually making money and obtaining property. In the 30s, when this platform is finally built, plenty of people suddenly find that their fertility is no longer sufficient to produce the desired number of offspring. Given that we are not likely to see shorter career starts anytime soon, IVF improvements seem to be the only way to partially escape this trap. Also, gametes produced by this method could be cheaper in the long run. Classical stimulation involves a lot of doctors and procedures. Maybe this process could be automated and streamlined; it matters way less if you produce "only" 400 ova out of 500 possible than if you get 4 instead of 5 ova from a living person.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  > Putting political labels aside, the main current problem with fertility is the length of education and career start. For someone who wants to have a good job, it means spending your twenties without actually making money and obtaining property. In the 30s, when this platform is finally built, plenty of people suddenly find that their fertility is no longer sufficient to produce the desired number of offspring. A big part of that is rising life expectancy. I'm 31, and my parents (probably and hopefully) won't die until I'm 60+ myself - which means unlike the generation prior to mine that had a reasonable hope of inheriting some wealth as a kickstarter (i.e. a downpayment or a place to live without having to pay shitloads in rent), I and many others of my generation will not have that. Related to this is that so fucking many Boomers can't leave the workforce - some (more so in the US) because they literally can't afford to live otherwise, but here in the EU more because they are completely unable to imagine a life without work. The result is that all upper layers of management are filled with old people, and young ones can't rise (and earn more money). Just look at the German Mittelstand - the amount of 80+ year olds still running their companies is utterly insane.
  - inglor_cz 3y ago
jokethrowaway 3y ago
> 1950s model isn't sustainable/compatible with modern day lifestyle I genuinely don't understand what you mean by that (as a parent of three who knows plenty of modern parents). The whole "your life is over once you have kids" is a falsehood from my experience. I'm working less, making more and picked up all the hobbies I wanted to pick. The first 2-3 years can be more demanding but nothing like the scaremongering I've heard all my life. Sure, I spend weekends with the family and not partying in Ibiza. > Will we see government run child homes? Where do you think the clones for the Galactic Empire in Star Wars are coming from?
- mnky9800n 3y ago
  Jango Fett DNA.
- hotpotamus 3y ago
  That's wonderful for you that you're working less and making more; do you think that's the experience for everyone? Aren't around half of all births paid for via Medicaid these days?
- bcrosby95 3y ago
  A lot probably depends on how much personal time you expect to get, how you spend your free time, and how serious you are about what you do in your free time.
woleium 3y ago
I'd have picked eggs too. Curren process costs around $10k, only works for women under 40 (ish), takes 2 weeks of being pumped full of hormones, followed by up to a week of bed rest after the retrieval operation. To be able to offer this to men and women of any age with nothing more than a cheek swab sounds like a real breakthrough.
bradleyjg 3y ago
What is missing from the article is the reason the startup picked eggs. The main reason is that eggs are very expensive due to the invasive procedure needed to extract healthy one (and the after effect of the procedure whole not dangerous to my knowledge can require you to stay in the hospital to recover). The other thing is that even after you go through all that you get 0-30 usable eggs. There’s steep further attrition at every step of the process. A couple is lucky to end with 5 implantable blastocysts at the end of multiple rounds of egg extraction, fertilization, and cultivation. This makes embryo selection for multiple traits very weak and not really worth it. However, if hundred or thousands of eggs could easily be produced that would open up a lot more possibilities. There’d still need to be other advances—current cultivation, cell biopsy, and genetic testing techniques would not scale—but it would very much open the door. Scientists are understandably reluctant to make this point, given the Luddism on display even at a place like HN.
jacooper 3y ago
> But fertility medtech is something that brings I think the reoccurring question of the biggest reason we don't have kids after financial, and that is that the 1950s model isn't sustainable/compatible with modern day lifestyle and no amount of conservative lifestyleshaming will change that. In the west, eastern cultures aren't suffering the same problems for a reason, they still value families. The west doesn't seem to do so, and i think it's one of the reasons for the "mental health pandemic".
- 0dayz 3y ago
  Not a single Eastern European country has a replacement birth rate[0]. In fact certain Eastern European countries have a worse birth rate than western European countries[1]. It's also makes no sense to proclaim "eastern Europe" as a unified cultural group, as eastern Europe technically includes Austria, despite Austria having a modern history more aligned with western Europe due to not being part of the Warsaw bloc. And no, even if we take your argument at face value eastern European culture does not value "family" more in practice, outwards it does, but younger people in eastern Europe are just like westerners in that they are seeking out career, social and cultural fulfillment before wanting to settle down. The only real difference between west and eastern Europe is that Western Europe is aware of the issue and don't know what to do (yet), while certain eastern European countries thinks that you can duct tape conservatism with modern ideals (and cut away anything that doesn't fit their view). [0]https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/DDN-20230309-1 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/D... [1]https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Fertility_statistics#The_birth_rate_in_the_EU_decreased_at_a_slower_pace_between_2000_and_2021_than_previously https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
  - jacooper 3y ago
    I wasn't talking about eastern Europe.
unaindz 3y ago
It is actually a dangerous operation, probably most if not all invasive operations are.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

xbrtay 3y ago

Celebrities better walk around dressed like in a semiconductor fab lest millions of people steal their DNA. Paternity lawsuits will be fun as well. Why do modern startups always make the world a worse place to live in?

hnhg 3y ago
Because technology advances quickly, but human nature does not.
Metacelsus 3y ago
Stealing DNA isn't sufficient, you'd need to steal live cells.
- lockhouse 3y ago
  Which still isn't particularly difficult. We shed live cells all the time.
  - inglor_cz 3y ago
    Imagine the situation when a well-meaning celebrity donates blood, someone unscrupulous steals a vial of it, and, a year later ... that poor guy has several hundred kids and is actually their mother. Could be done, if you have a reliable method of turning human white blood cells back to stem cells and then to ova.
    - analog31 3y ago
      News stories about the children of celebrities should be enough to dissuade this. But all joking aside, I suspect the main interest will be in people getting eggs from their own cells. Now sperm might be another matter, especially given the premium on being tall.
kps 3y ago
> Why do modern startups always make the world a worse place to live in? Well, this one has an actual product in mind, that is aimed at making its customers happy. So it beats 90% of modern startups already. Now, if they find a way to lock the children behind a subscription paywall, I'll be the first to agree with you.

Metacelsus 3y ago

I'm a scientist working in this field and I agree with Amander Clark: Conception needs to publish more data if they want people to believe their claims. The FOXL2/DDX4 immunofluorescence image in the NPR article is literally the only thing they've released. (Conflict of interest: I'm partially funded by Gameto, a competitor to Conception)

inglor_cz 3y ago
Seeing an expert here, this process already works in mice, right? Healthy mice were born this way. I know that "in mice" doesn't translate to "in humans" easily, but it is a proof of concept of sorts.
- DonsDiscountGas 3y ago
  I don't think anybody denies that this is possible, but "possible" is a different status from "accomplished".

itronitron 3y ago

Just like Mom used to make.

causality0 3y ago

What's their plan on tackling the legal barriers to this? This is most definitely human experimentation. Additionally, in many countries including the US using genetically modified embryos to create a pregnancy is completely illegal. I can see this hitting the Supreme Court.

jokethrowaway 3y ago
Creating an egg presumably isn't
- inglor_cz 3y ago
  In all likelihood, the ban of genetic modification of embryos will go away, too. Not tomorrow, but it will. Once we know with high probability that some genetic interventions improve lives of people a lot (say, by reducing probability of cancer or heart attack significantly), there will be an enormous pressure to introduce them.

b800h 3y ago

I'm generally very positive about science and engineering, but I'm completely sick and tired of its use in dehumanising technologies. We need to be a lot more savvy about what we consider acceptable, and politics will have to change to facilitate that.

Mizoguchi 3y ago
Having been through multiple rounds of IVF and knowing many couples and their stories during such long, expensive, physically and emotionally exhausting process, I believe this technology would be extremely positive for humanity.
inglor_cz 3y ago
From a point of view of someone who knows more than a few desperate couples, inhuman and unacceptable would be to deny them efficient treatment based on vague moralistic instincts. Would you be happy if some person denied you insulin or glasses based on the fact that they feel sick and tired about such ungodly inventions that pervert the course of nature?
- imchillyb 3y ago
  Both diabetes and myopathy are direct results of our society. They represent cases where our technology and our living standards have caused diseases in abundance. Adding yet another easily avoidable disease to the pile seems reckless.
  - DonsDiscountGas 3y ago
    Diabetes is as old as humanity, up until a century ago it was death sentence. Our living standards have caused people to live where earlier they would have died. Here we are allowing people to reproduce where otherwise they would not be able to. All of this is a good thing.
  - inglor_cz 3y ago
    Do you mean "myopia"? Yeah, it is a civilizational disease, but from a sufferer: it is very much bearable and tolerable. I surely wouldn't like to play some sort of eugenic match against people who would rather either stop civilization in its track or prevent myopic people like me from existence for their own good, or ban them from doing anything that could possibly cause myopia in them. People suffered all sorts of aftereffects from civilizational progress, but I am optimistic in the sense that we can eventually conquer them and next generations may enjoy all the benefits without suffering harms.

_2z1p 3y ago

Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should. - Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jurassic Park)

inglor_cz 3y ago
Infertility is a pathology. Perhaps we should treat it as such and nothing more. No one morally sane would deny a person in a wheelchair a chance to walk, or a blind person a chance to see, just because they were born "naturally" lame or blind. Same with having kids, no?
- lockhouse 3y ago
  We’re meddling with far larger forces here. Some fertility issues are a sort of quality control system for our species. If this technology becomes widespread it could ultimately change human evolution dramatically. If this were to supplant normal biological reproduction and reproductive organs atrophy we could eventually become wholly dependent upon technology to reproduce as a species.
  - inglor_cz 3y ago
    "Some fertility issues are a sort of quality control system for our species." I am not discounting your argument, but quality isn't a stable value. A short-sighted or asthmatic person in a hunter-gatherer society might have been useless; nowadays, they may be an excellent engineer or doctor. With technology like the one being described in the article, you actually have a much higher chance of producing viable embryos free of known genetic problems. Dependence on technology, well, it is sorta dangerous, but also unavoidable. For example, the # of people who produce their own food is very small in the West. And that small number would become almost zero if we added further constraints (as in "don't use any industrially produced chemicals in the process"). Our ancestors from 200 years ago would probably consider us unviable. (And the actual hunters and gatherers would consider them unviable. What, you depend on good weather and rain not to starve?)
  - kps 3y ago

eggybread 3y ago

[flagged]

twoifbyseat 3y ago
Not sure if you're serious, but if anyone's wondering, no, it wouldn't. Donor eggs are extremely expensive (thousands of dollars each). Donor sperm is practically free.
boondoggle16 3y ago
> unnecessary reproductive vestige Men are still really strong and have a lot of testosterone, and women will literally never be able to kill us off or enslave us due to this.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  It's weird anyone still thinks strength of arm is the determining force-multiplier in the era of drones, nukes, or even firearms.
MrYellowP 3y ago
That's not sexist at all, hu?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

dzink 3y ago

There is a Netflix documentary now called “King of Clones” and it describes a a very similar technology currently used to clone animals. They take skin cells, take and empty a real egg of the same or similar species of its own DNA and insert the cell DNA to copy an individual. There seems to be some small variety in the output and obviously a plethora of ethical issues (one scandal involved the main researcher asking many of his female staffers donating their eggs for human cloning). Currently the tech is used to clone prized Camels and pets for wealthy individuals. The value and risks are obviously beyond numerous. For risks specifically: 1. The surrogate developing cancers (happened to prized tigers they were trying to clone). 2. The source of the eggs (possibly what this company may be trying to do differently) 3. Sociopaths cloning themselves or being brought back to run violently suppressed societies (Including someone trying to bring back dead ones). 4. Egomaniac individuals flooding the world with copies of themselves. 5. The Technology being easy enough to replicate in less regulated locations becomes essentially unregulated. For value, assuming the startup that is trying to generate both egg and sperm succeeds, you can cure infertility and enable same-sex couples to have biological children. They have to show data that that is indeed what they have been able to achieve vs just cloning.