For same-sex or infertile couples looking to have a child, there are several options; adoption, surrogacy, and in-vitro fertilization (IVF) have come a long way since their origins. However, there is one possibility that scientists hope to develop—the ability for these types of couples to conceive biological children. The most promising method is in-vitro gametogenesis (IVG). Both IVF and IVG are the implantation of an embryo fertilized in vitro (meaning outside the body) into a womb. However, unlike IVF, IVG is the creation of sperm or egg cells from adult somatic cells, rather than the use of pre-existing gametic cells. With IVG technology ethical concerns have arisen, many of which are similar to those surrounding IVF when it was first developed.
The event that spurred this on was a discovery in 2006 by scientist Shinya Yamanaka. Yamanaka was able to create induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) from the adult somatic cells of mice. Pluripotency is the ability of a cell to change into any type of cell. In nature, once a cell develops into, for example, a muscle cell, it is unable to change into another cell type. The only cells that can naturally differentiate into multiple types of cells are stem cells. [1] The development of iPS cells is so important because, before this discovery, to work with human stem cells, a scientist would have to extract them from human embryos. iPSC offers a close imitation of embryonic stem cells without any need for an actual embryo. The creation of iPS cells not only changed the future of fertility but other fields such as organ transplantation and drug development.
This may sound like the perfect solution, but it is not so simple. One main issue is that it is more difficult to have an iPS cell develop into an egg than other cell types. From MIT Technology Review, “Certain cell types are very easy to make in the lab: leave pluripotent stem cells in a dish for a few days, and some will spontaneously start to beat like heart muscle. Others will become fat cells. But an egg might be the hardest cell to produce. It’s huge—one of the largest cells in the body. And its biology is unique, too. A woman is born with her full complement of eggs and never makes any more.” [2] However, there is hope for the future. Per Professor Sonia M. Suter of George Washington University Law School, “So far scientists have not achieved similar success in creating human oocytes, although they have derived egg-like cells. Given that research on mice has yielded both sperm and oocytes, however, it is probably merely a matter of time before human oocytes can be derived in vitro.” [3]
The other major issue when utilizing IVG for same-sex couples is the issue of X and Y chromosomes. For two biological females to have a biological child together, a cell from one female would need to be changed into a sperm cell with an X and a Y chromosome. Similarly, for two biological males to have a biological child together, one of their cells would need to be changed into an egg cell with two X chromosomes. The male couple would also need to have someone else with a womb carry the child until its birth. [4] The matter of X and Y chromosomes, however, is not an issue for opposite-sex infertile couples.
There are a variety of difficulties making scientists hesitant about pursuing in vitro gametogenesis. Firstly, we must address one significant problem: the stigma surrounding same-sex couples having children together. Same-sex couples in many countries are still unable to marry or have joint custody of children. Only 33 countries recognize joint same-sex adoption, which is only 17% of the world’s nations. [5] As many places do not allow same-sex adoption, even if IVG advances it is possible that same-sex couples will not be able to use it. Prejudice towards same-sex couples is stinting the study of this form of childbearing, as funding for scientific research is allocated towards what is seen as most beneficial for a country’s citizens, and thus the majority of countries will not allocate funding for this type of research. However, as IVG would also help infertile heterosexual couples, and as sentiment towards same-sex couples generally improves, hopefully this is a problem that will become less glaring in the future.
Another issue is how we approach the research of IVG. The fear is that in order to pursue the research of IVG for commercial use, we will have to create and destroy artificial embryos. This is an ethical issue for many scientists and researchers. Additionally, research into IVG would likely further the genetic editing field as a whole, and many may ask: if we are creating embryos artificially and can edit them, why not make our children the best they can possibly be? This leads to the slippery slope of ‘designer babies’ and eugenics. Professor Sonia M. Suter writes, “Given the breadth of genetic information that would potentially be available with such technological advances, future parents would have the potential to select embryos or gametes not only based on genetic factors associated with illness, but also based on certain traits. This development might motivate ever more fine-tuning of the ‘quality’ of future offspring and potentially normalize the kinds of commodification attitudes that are troublesome under relational autonomy.” [3] Many are very worried about the future of genetically edited embryos because it can further strengthen disparities based on wealth, class, and access to cutting-edge medical technology. If only the top echelon of humanity can afford or access this technology, this can widen the divide between them and the rest of the population. However, this concern is not unique to IVG. It has been voiced about nearly every other genetic innovation, from CRISPR to IVF. This technology will not inherently lead to negative outcomes: it is all about how it is used and how lawmakers regulate it.
Despite all these potential worries surrounding IVG, its development would truly change lives. The ability for infertile and same-sex couples to have biological children seems like science fiction, but it may be within our grasp. As long as IVG, similarly to many other scientific innovations, is developed, used, and regulated responsibly, this technology could truly change the ability of many families to grow.
References:
Pontin, J. (2018, March 27). Science Is Getting Us Closer to the End of Infertility. Wired. https://www.wired.com/story/reverse-infertility/
Regalado, A. (2021, October 28). How Silicon Valley hatched a plan to turn blood into human eggs. MIT Technology Review. https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/10/28/1038172/conception-eggs-reproduction-vitro-gametogenesis/
Suter S. M. (2015). In vitro gametogenesis: just another way to have a baby? Journal of law and the biosciences, 3(1), 87–119. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsv057
Lehmann-Haupt, R. (2018, February 28). Get Ready for Same-Sex Reproduction. NEO.LIFE. https://neo.life/2018/02/get-ready-for-same-sex-reproduction/
Which countries allow adoption by same-sex couples? (n.d.). CoParents.Co.Uk. https://www.coparents.co.uk/blog/which-countries-allow-adoption-by-same-sex-couples/