It sounds too bizarre to be true.
Someone gets in close physical proximity to a successful billionaire, handsome movie star or brilliant Ivy League professor. Sluffed skin cells are clandestinely collected and coaxed into induced pluripotent stem cells in a laboratory culture dish. Then they’re transformed into functional sperm.
The sperm is combined with an egg, and a human embryo is conceived and implanted into a woman. The individual is then hit with a paternity suit for child support. A DNA test seals his fate.
Set aside your first inclination to dismiss this as the stuff of science fiction. It’s already real.
At least in animals.
Researchers in Japan have successfully achieved in vitro gametogenesis (IVG) with mice and it’s expected that human triumphs will soon follow.
Women could be at equal risk of IVG exploitation because the same technology can transform skin cells into eggs.
Emily Mullin, writing for MIT Technology Review, sounded the alarm that this seemingly brilliant development could have profound implications for society. Ms. Mullin’s concerns are backed up by a scientific editorial on the subject whose authors possess impressive credentials, including the dean of Harvard Medical School.
The claimed “benefits” of IVG would be to overcome the limited availability of human embryos for experimentation, plus the potential reproductive and regenerative therapies. But as society well knows, technology in the past has barreled forward at breakneck speed while ethical guidelines lag far behind, usually at the expense of the sanctity of human life.
The pitfalls of IVG are many.
While the example of “unauthorized” parenthood may be the most suited for TV drama, it’s not the only concern.
Advocates tout IVG would eliminate the need for retrieval of donor eggs that sometimes result in serious complications, including death. However, the unmistakable reality is that it would elevate “embryo farming” to a level never before imagined.
The creation of human embryos on such a massive, wide scale for the sole purpose of killing them for experimentation would justifiably generate unprecedented controversy. But thanks to the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, current law would make these embryos ineligible for federal funding.
Under the US Food and Drug Administration resultant sperm and eggs from IVG would be considered “cellular and gene therapy product.” Yes, human life would be relegated to something merely to be bought and sold.
As for reproduction, IVG would facilitate a much higher number of human embryos which would allow parents to be more particular about selecting the “perfect” child and killing the unwanted or unused tiny humans. Combining IVG with another evolving new technology would exacerbate the situation further. Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) is a process that enables scientists to select a specific area of external DNA and merge it with the embryo. This enhanced ability to create “designer babies” would make the technology more vulnerable to criticism.
Experts say the most disruptive impact would be on the very concept of parenting. Science has already introduced the possibility of three-parent embryos. IVG would expand unconventional parenting by facilitating genetic contributions from both participants in a same-sex relationship. Even a single individual could conceivably be the entire biologic contribution to future human embryos. This no doubt would be nirvana to radical feminists, who already have no use for men.
As advocates for America’s most vulnerable citizens, we have a duty to speak out against technology that devalues innocent human life to advance science. LIFE comes first.
Leave a Reply