Category: Let's talk
By Kate Sikora, Health Reporter
July 09, 2009 12:00am
MEN could lose their role in the reproductive process after human sperm was created artificially in a laboratory.
Scientists used stem-cell technology to grow the sperm in a groundbreaking experiment that offers hope of fatherhood to thousands of infertile men.
In a process many experts believed was still decades away, scientists in Britain treated the stem cells with a cocktail of chemicals. They then watched as the cells grew heads and tails.
Editorial - New world makes men redundant
But the controversial work has yet to be proven successful in producing healthy babies and also raises moral questions, with the possibility that babies could be born entirely through artificial means.
Biologist Karim Nayernia, from Britain's Newcastle University, who carried out the experiment, is convinced the artificial sperm is capable of fertilising eggs and creating offspring.
He hopes in the future to use skin cells taken from a man's arm, bypassing the need to use an actual embryo.
"This is an important development as it will allow researchers to study in detail how sperm forms and lead to a better understanding of infertility in men," he said.
"This understanding could help us develop new ways to help couples suffering infertility so they can have a child which is genetically their own."
The scientists took stem cells from a male embryo, treating them with special chemicals to set them on the path towards becoming sperm.
A few of the cells underwent the crucial step of meiosis - or cell division - followed by growth into mobile sperm with heads and tails.
IVF Australia fertility specialist Associate Professor Peter Illingworth said about 400 men every year in NSW could benefit from the process.
"If it was proven to be successful and shown to be safe in producing healthy offspring then I think it could be very exciting for the future," he said.
But it could be a long time before artificial sperm is offered at IVF clinics - or before men become completely redundant in the reproductive world.
Firstly, this new process would need to jump through major ethical and legal hurdles, University of Melbourne professor of law Loane Skene said.
Then there is the problem that, despite tests, women still can't produce sperm.
"If it was possible for a woman to make sperm from her skin and produce eggs to go on and make babies, then everybody else would be redundant, too, except the scientists who are helping her," Professor Skene said. "But you never know what's going to happen in science."
Fellas what do you think? Women, are you rejoicing? Woot woot Frankensperm!
Nem
creating the baby before birth is only half the issue. this could completely redefine the role of fathers and families. before we leap we'd better look pretty carefully.Children develop best if they have role models of both sexes. T
Women will always need men...especially on days when we needa good laugh.
First off, let's get something straight. Men are not and will not be redundant, but these artificial sperm are.
Secondly, I have a couple questions. Do these babies have to develop within the womb? And if a woman or couple would choose to have a child this way, could they then choose the gender of their child?
It's an interesting development, but I personally don't think this plannet needs any more humans to destroy it as we and the generations before us are already doing a good job. Adoption is a solution to couples who can't have kids.
Braille Reader, I concur.
I hadn't even thought about adoption. But now that you brought it up, I've got a bit to say about that pertaining to this situation.
If infertile couples go through with having a child using artificial sperm, then their would be no point in adoption, assuming all infertile couples wanted children and would choose not to adopt or ignore the fact that such an option is available. In this case, the population would increase even drastically than before, and people that deal with couples and children before and during the adoption process would be out of work.
Am I wrong?
I agree in part Raven, though not all couples choose to adopt because of infertility. But you are right of course, adoption would become very rare.
You are also right in saying that men will not become redundant. If this method becomes common practice, it is just another way for infertile couples to bring children into the world. If it becomes available to women who want a child, but don't want a man, then it could become a problem.
I'm in agreement with you on that last statement there, Cam. If a woman wants to remain single but wants a child, then that's just about always a bad deal in my opinion. I think that every child needs two parents for financial, emotional, spiritual, and any other kind of support.
We want both the hands for clapping. but you can also argue, without hands you can clap with your keyboard sound.
I wonder will that be similar to our own clappings? Never, in my opinion. can you say Why girls are seeking for a man even though vibrators are fulfilling their sexual requirements somehow?
Likewise, you can produce kids by various ways. but I'm sure that needs a parent for it's support. or a gardian, whatever. On the other hand, natural is natural and artificial is artificial.
I've seen many orthopedecally handicapped with artificial limbs. but while I was asking them whether these limbs are similar to your natural ones? for which, none of them said yes.
So, I'm dam sure that will never be similar to naturally borned kids.
Raaj.
One question I have is: Why are artificial sperm even necessary? I mean, infertile couples or single women have other options: adoption, IVF, artificial insemination, and a surrogate mother. Oh yes, then there's test tube children. I really don't see why these artificial sperm are necessary or were created.
And if the child created using this artificial sperm possessed genes from both parents, then men will never become "redundant" in the reproductive world, as is said they might in this article.
raven, i disagree with you partially about adoption. single parents are the desired ideal. i'd hate to see a child for lack of a dual parent home being left in the foster care system. stability is more important than two parents. it would be better for a child to be in a loving one parent home than to be passed from pillar to post as they appear to be in the maryland family court system.
I hadn't even thought about that. But you're very right. That's a good point.
"Then there is the problem that, despite tests, women still can't produce sperm."
We're female you idiot. We're not supposed to produce sperm. This guy is a professor? Seriously? Besides, if we could produce sperm to go along with our own eggs, I think the species itself would become redundant. We'd just be passing down the same genetic code over and over again
Hello Braille Reader,
I agree with you. There are so many children to be adopted.
women still need men to carry out the whole process. if i'm not mistaken, it does require to have sexual intercors for the process
Braille Reader, I agree with you on adoption. What's wrong with all the children out there who need homes? I don't see how this could make men redundant, since male stem cells are still necessary to create the sperm. Also, not every woman goes with men just for children. I think we're all forgetting one of the best joys of life, sex. And I donno about anyone else but I'm not about to put artificial sperm in my mouth. Seriously, we'll always need men. Now if they made an independent artificial penis, that could cause problems. lol To Digressive Distortion, while I agree that it is usually a good thing for children to have two parents, I also don't see a reason why a single woman can't have children, provided she's financially and emotionally stable enough to take care of them. Then, we have the issue of same sex couples, who clearly can't have children together. So why shouldn't they be afforded an opportunity to do so, especially if they're women and one can cary the baby. All that said, I see no reason at all why anyone in these situations can't just use normal artificial insemination. No, it does not require sexual intercourse. The sperm can simply be inserted into the uterus. Also, it's extremely rare, but women can become pregnant through contact with sperm naturally, without intercourse.
There is nothing wrong with being or having a single parent. But what I'm saying is that having two financially, mentally, and emotionally stable parents is better in a number of situations.
There would still be infertile people to adopt. Some women couldn't carry a baby no matter how much artificial sperm was created. There are many other reasons besides low sperm count and such, that people can not have their own children. Just another point to remember.
Ah, so many children to adopt, so little money to do it. Most people here seem to be touting addoption. It's all well and good, I'd thought that I might want to adopt myself, but most people here don't realize all that is involved in the process. Legal fees and other concerns, red tape, time wasted, inspections up the wazoo, and even then there's no guarantee. While we're on the subject of people that are denied for adoption, let's not forget homosexual couples who are unable to in most states. Surrogacy also has it's own share of complications, including finantial for some people. I don't think men will ever be completely redundant, mostly because these developments were meant to help them.
This is already sort of available although right now men are needed. A single woman can go to a clinic and pick from a book the type of child she'd like to have. Sexual intercourse is not needed she is gien the sperm using a tool simular to a turkey baster, so with this sperm the same deal would be done. Seems cold to me, and loveless. Adoption show greater love, and women, or men that choice no mates seem selfish.
If I had to choose between the two, I would choose adoption. But those who could: if they wanted to do this, might decide to do it because they would also want to have the exspirence of the preg witch you don't get threw adoption.
I really don't think this is a good idea in the long run. We're messing too much with nature in today's modern society, and one day, it's going to come back to bite us. I don't claim to be an expert, but all this genetic altering we are gaining the ability to accomplish these days can't be good.
I don't know about that but I don't like it in the least. It's just a stupid idea.
Animal cloning has proven it's not so hot.
This is just a way for the feminists to hoot and holler in the streets.
this is bullshit. like someone said infertile so what just adopt..they could be spending all this time and money curing diseases and shit like that
Gloria Steinam, matriarch feminista who wrote on the dangers and fallacies of wedlock in her "literature" of the 60s and 70s, got married in the latter part of the 1990s.
Don't know if it was to a pink-slippered eunuch or what, but ... the feministas are no different from anyone else. They know on what side their bread is buttered. Just sayin'
Some people might view it as a feminist thing. In any event, I think it will eventually cause trouble, in some way. If you're infertile, there's probably a reason for it.
What I think is that when we have children we should save all the stuff that comes with, preserved somehow, so that if something went wrong with them they could be fixed, and if they turned out lesbian or something but wanted children, what do you know, they could have them, so my thoughts apply here too.
That is a good point, and then the child really would be there's.
Ah but the child really would never truely be there's.
omg, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. You're notorious for that.