That's fascinating. It doesn't set off any ethical alarm bells, either. Maybe it should; maybe a case could be made that instead of putting all that energy, time, and expense into making babies, people who want kids should be encouraged adopt them. That case won't be made by me, though. Could unwanted genetic tinkering happen? Can't it happen now, with current IVF procedures? It seems as though if anything the ethical problems cited with IVF technology should be mitigated with iPSC oocytes. The whole "every sperm is sacred" problem goes away. Although not the fertilized embryo problem, I guess.
Speaking of sperm, is anyone trying to make male gametes, or is there an impregnable (heh) technical barrier to that?
Great insights and questions, Fager. I can see two approaches to consider regarding genetic manipulation in the context of current IVF: 1) direct gene editing such as with CRISPR technology, and 2) screening of oocyte and sperm for trait selection. It's important to note, however, that many traits, like intelligence, are influenced by multiple genes (polygenic), making the second option currently more feasible than the first, given the complexities associated with making multiple edits using CRISPR.
I know there are many individuals passionate about the ethics ethics of fertilized embryos. Personally, the top of my value hierarchy is ensuring the development of a next generation (which right now probably means fertilizing multiple embryos), though I fully recognize and understand the counterarguments.
Regarding the question of male gametes, yes! There was a recent article about the development of male testes as organoids. I believe they were capable of producing sperm. I think there may just be less interest for many reproductive scientists because of the scarcity and accessibility of oocytes vs the abundance of sperm. Nevertheless, it is still an extremely valuable milestone.
Lol. No, there's no sperm shortage, and pretty much everyone who has some is an enthusiastic donor.
I meant when a couple's fertility problems come from the guy's side of the equation, having him donate another kind of cell to make sperm would serve the same end as the iPSC-derived eggs. Yes? No? I didn't pay much attention in health class. Can't infertility be caused by irregularities in the sperm? Like low motility? I'm vaguely recalling that some Thoroughbred stallions have unspectacular or non-existent stud careers because of that. Interestingly (to me), the world jockey clubs that set the rules for the Thoroughbred horse racing industry require that Thoroughbreds be produced from a live cover in order to be registered in the stud book. They don't allow AI breeding like the sport horse, Quarter Horse, and standardbred stud books do.
That's fascinating. It doesn't set off any ethical alarm bells, either. Maybe it should; maybe a case could be made that instead of putting all that energy, time, and expense into making babies, people who want kids should be encouraged adopt them. That case won't be made by me, though. Could unwanted genetic tinkering happen? Can't it happen now, with current IVF procedures? It seems as though if anything the ethical problems cited with IVF technology should be mitigated with iPSC oocytes. The whole "every sperm is sacred" problem goes away. Although not the fertilized embryo problem, I guess.
Speaking of sperm, is anyone trying to make male gametes, or is there an impregnable (heh) technical barrier to that?
Great insights and questions, Fager. I can see two approaches to consider regarding genetic manipulation in the context of current IVF: 1) direct gene editing such as with CRISPR technology, and 2) screening of oocyte and sperm for trait selection. It's important to note, however, that many traits, like intelligence, are influenced by multiple genes (polygenic), making the second option currently more feasible than the first, given the complexities associated with making multiple edits using CRISPR.
I know there are many individuals passionate about the ethics ethics of fertilized embryos. Personally, the top of my value hierarchy is ensuring the development of a next generation (which right now probably means fertilizing multiple embryos), though I fully recognize and understand the counterarguments.
Regarding the question of male gametes, yes! There was a recent article about the development of male testes as organoids. I believe they were capable of producing sperm. I think there may just be less interest for many reproductive scientists because of the scarcity and accessibility of oocytes vs the abundance of sperm. Nevertheless, it is still an extremely valuable milestone.
Lol. No, there's no sperm shortage, and pretty much everyone who has some is an enthusiastic donor.
I meant when a couple's fertility problems come from the guy's side of the equation, having him donate another kind of cell to make sperm would serve the same end as the iPSC-derived eggs. Yes? No? I didn't pay much attention in health class. Can't infertility be caused by irregularities in the sperm? Like low motility? I'm vaguely recalling that some Thoroughbred stallions have unspectacular or non-existent stud careers because of that. Interestingly (to me), the world jockey clubs that set the rules for the Thoroughbred horse racing industry require that Thoroughbreds be produced from a live cover in order to be registered in the stud book. They don't allow AI breeding like the sport horse, Quarter Horse, and standardbred stud books do.
Keep up the good articles!
Glad you enjoyed!
This is incredible !!!