First up is Dave Solter, developmental biologist, who predicts that induced
pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) with be cultured into human gametes (sperm
and ova). This would mean that anybody who has skin will be able to be a
genetic parent, whether they are just an embryo, a corpse or any stage in
between. Given that the harvesting of eggs is a major issue in research and
reproductive technology, this would be a major boon to the field. No need
for women nor men - just grow the eggs and sperm yourself. It would also
mean (Dave doesn't mention this, but I think it is important) you could test
that stability of genetic modifications over many generations in vitro
within just a few years by 'breeding' human embryos. Dave also mentions that
an artificial placenta, allowing for the culture of embryos past the
blastocyst stage, may be likely.
Next is Alan Trounson, Australian IVF pioneer and now the director of
California Institute for Reproductive Medicine. He seconds Dave Solter's
predictions (adding the possibility using embryonic stem cells derived from
somatic cell nuclear transfer instead of iPSCs), but raises some cautionary
issues. His other predictions include better gene therapy using genetic
cassettes and low-cost IVF for the developing nation. Nothing special here.
Following him is Susannah Baruch, director of reproductive genetics at the
Genetics and Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University. Her
predictions mostly concern preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), which
she sees as not being a tool to make designer babies but just for gaining
full genetic information about a child's future. She also states that "The
old-fashioned way [of reproducing] is cheaper and more fun and that won't
change in 30 years." I agree, but the end result (the child) will be less
reliable.
I'm not going to talk about what Alastair Sutcliffe, a paediatrician, said
because it is just about long-term health of children conceived by this
technology. Not really any predictions.
Scott Gelfand, director of the Ethics Center at Oklahoma State University,
makes the sensible (in my view) prediction that medical technology will
allow for the viability of foetuses born even up to 12 weeks of age, or even
complete ectogenesis (artificial wombs, no human woman needed). Scott is on
the ball, because he sees that this could dramatically affect the abortion
debate. A conservative government could require all unwanted pregnancies be
transfered into an artificial womb. This would essentially become the
dividing line between pro-choice (woman's control over her body) reasoning
and "pro-abortion" (lack of rights for the foetus) reasoning. As I fall into
the latter category, I should hope that these artificial wombs are not a
tool for outlawing abortion.
Miodrag Stojkovic, stem-cell biologist, predicts that clones will become
much easier to make if Dave's predictions come true. With the requirements
for cloning being up to hundreds of eggs, an excess derived from stem cells
could allowing reproductive cloning to go ahead. Of course, she points out
that reproductive cloning will not be very popular, as (almost) all
incentives to clone could be satisfied by artificial gametes. And we won't
make clones for organs either, because we can probably just skip the clone
and go straight to the organ (i.e. grow the whole organ from stem cells).
A cure for infertility is the core prediction of Zev Rosenwaks, director of
the Center for Reproductive Medicine and Infertility in New York, who also
seconds Dave's predictions about making sperm and ova. This is good, because
it puts choice as the core component of reproduction. No more God or Mother
Nature choosing whether some people can have children or not.
Finally, Régine Sitruk-Ware, reproductive endocrinologist, looks at the flip
side of the previous prediction - contraceptives. She points out that more
reproductive research is on people's choice to have a child and not people's
choice not to have children. She hopes for more effective contraceptives and
non-hormonal versions (such as one that prevents sperm from entering the
ovum), allowing yet more choice into the realm of reproduction.

Source:   Nature News

Rayilyn Brown
Director AZNPF
Arizona Chapter National Parkinson Foundation
[log in to unmask]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn