Sperm Futures

The prospect for all-female reproduction looks great, according to this story in The Independent.

Scientists are seeking ethical permission to produce synthetic sperm cells from a woman's bone marrow tissue after showing that it possible to produce rudimentary sperm cells from male bone-marrow tissue.

People have too much money. Too much time. I keep asking myself, "Can this continue for much longer?" Maybe. Is there any chance of any government banning all such experimentation, not to mention implementation? Is there really a shortage of sperm? A shortage of  fertility? Imagine giving one sex the ability to reproduce only their own sex: such artificially produced sperm would only produced females. Does no one think about the problems for human ecology, the delicate balance between the number of males and females, the potential social disruption of skewing populations in one direction or another? Already in  parts of the world females are aborted in large numbers than males. How much farther can man travel down the path of Dr. Frankenstein?

The next step, from the article, to see if this promising technique might actually work:

If sperm cells can be developed from female bone-marrow tissue they will be matured in the laboratory and tested for their ability to penetrate the outer "shell" of a hamster's egg - a standard fertility test for sperm.

"We want to test the functionality of any male and female sperm that is made by this way," Professor Nayernia said. But he said there was no intention at this stage to produce female sperm that would be used to fertilise a human egg, a move that would require the approval of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

Nice to know someone's in charge of all this.

Comments

[GL]

"I keep asking myself, 'Can this continue for much longer?'"

I see no end in sight. We are a long way down the road in separating human procreation from natural sexual intercourse, treating the two as increasingly unrelated. What was once the subject of science fiction written to warn us of a dreadful future has become accepted as a blessing of science fact by most of the population of what was once called Christendom. I dread to see where it will lead, recalling the words of our Lord in another context, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

[dilys]

That anyone, really anyone, can't see that this is a bad idea, one more that tears the social and deeper fabric, makes me realize how marginal my thinking is from the mainstream.

Among other things, it demonstrates a perversion of human creativity, in that mechanisms like this are not held aside for true emergencies, but are promoted, experimentally expanded, and take on a life of their own, based on both commerce and prestige / fashion. Less harrowing than perusing sperm bank catalogues (eeeuuuw). If this succeeds, no longer is it a science fiction plot to imagine mothers advising daughters not to take on the worry of attracting and marrying someone -- no pesky in-law adjustments or barely domesticated husbands -- just go straight to conception. And the granddaughter can do the same.

[Martha]

"Nice to know someone's in charge of all this."

I am presuming that last remark was made tongue in cheek, with a large dollop of irony and a garnish of sarcasm, seeing as how the HFEA have a long record of "No, no, well, really you shouldn't, oh all right then, go ahead" decision-making when it comes to granting permission for scientific purposes.

And seeing as how Baroness Warnock, who drew up the report that led to the establishment of the HFEA, has definite views on who can and cannot be trusted to be 'objective' - she rejected a Catholic from membership of the committee because "I just knew that I couldn't work with him." - I would not be terribly sanguine about its ethical sensitivity.

The current Chair of the HFEA "is a member of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, the Society of Authors and the Magistrates Association" whose "professional career has been in marketing and public relations, both as a practitioner and an academic." Rather light on the scientific background to understand the issues in depth I would have thought, but then again, if all she is required to do is rubber-stamp the decisions, then a PR background is ideal.

[Gina]

The guiding ethic seems to be, "Because we can."

[Bill R]

It may be a time to re-issue "A Canticle for Leibowitz," substituting a demographic disaster for the original nuclear version.