This Mouse Has Two Biological Dads?!
An experiment with staggering implications for the future of human reproduction.
HD DownloadIn a lab in Japan, scientists transformed cells from the tails of male mice into eggs. They fertilized the eggs with ordinary mouse sperm and implanted them in surrogate mouse moms. The experiment was repeated 630 times. Although most of the pregnancies failed, seven healthy mice were born.
Each of those seven baby mice had two biological dads.
The experiment has staggering implications for the future of human reproduction. Biologist Katsuhiko Hayashi, who led the project, predicts that within a decade, a human skin cell could be used to create a viable human egg. The biotech companies Conception Bio and Gameto are already working on this technology.
This would allow same-sex couples to have natural offspring. Perhaps even solo reproduction will be possible, with one man generating both the sperm and the egg.
Some conservatives are alarmed. "The global fertility industry seeks to erase women from procreation one manufactured egg at a time," Jordan Boyd wrote at The Federalist.
Actually, this technology would be empowering for women who want to have children but can't produce viable eggs—or for older women who have already gone through menopause.
Younger women would also benefit. If a piece of skin can be turned into a viable egg, women doing IVF will be saved from daily hormone injections and from needles in their vaginas, both of which are part of the standard retrieval process today.
Ben Hurlbut, a bioethicist at Arizona State University, told USA Today that this technology is "a perversion of the sanctity of procreation as a fundamental aspect of human life."
It's not a perversion of anything. Procreation is a fundamental aspect of human life—and with this technology, more people would be able to take part. Just ask the 9 percent of men and 11 percent of women of reproductive age in the United States who have experienced fertility problems.
Marcy Darnovsky, head of the left-wing Center for Genetics and Society, warned on NPR that this technology could have dystopian consequences, noting that "this could take us into kind of a Gattaca world."
Darnovsky was referencing the 1997 sci-fi movie in which a eugenicist state is ruled by people born with genetically enhanced abilities.
It's true that this technology could allow parents to test their embryos before implantation and select the traits of their future offspring. But IVF already makes this possible. Today, parents routinely test embryos for heritable conditions and for gender. In the future, they may be able to select for more qualities. And there's nothing wrong with that.
As Stanford University bioethicist Hank Greely correctly observes, we should rely on "parental choices to make decisions about how people wish to create families."
This follows from the reasonable presumption that parents generally seek to provide the best lives for their kids. The sorry history of eugenics in the U.S., where tens of thousands were forcibly sterilized during the 20th century, should make anyone cautious about government meddling in people's reproductive choices.
The ability to turn mouse tails into mouse babies could become the latest technology to give humans more freedom to have the lives they choose with the families of their dreams.
This video is based on the essay "What if Men Could Produce Their Own Eggs?," from our February 2024 issue.
Photo credits: K. Hardy (CC BY 4.0), National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases NIH (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0), Atdoan0 (CC BY-SA 4.0), Internet Archive Book Images (CC0 1.0), Bada Bing (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0), Peter Hermes Furian, Zurijeta, 7active Studio, Srckomkrit
Music credits: "Movements," by Skygaze. Licensed by Artlist.
- Graphics Producer: Lex Villena
- Narration: Katherine Mangu-Ward
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Soy boy pets
"This would allow same-sex couples to have natural offspring."
* Two dads is not natural, but it doesn't bother me.
* All this tech is natural only in the same sense that if beaver dams are natural, so are human dams.
* What does bother me is a science writer misusing such an ordinary word to somehow pretend that having two dads via high tech experimental science is somehow natural. I know Reason isn't any more libertarian than any other dime-a-dozen rag, but going woke so stupidly is just plain stupid.
What happened, did the Koch money suddenly come with a notice that it would only be dished out if subscribers dropped to some new low, and you're trying to drive away libertarians who won't hand out $25 for woke nonsense?
"This (and a heck of a lot of money) would allow same-sex couples to have natural offspring."
And what if someone wants to have a child with a celebrity? Will Taylor Swift have to wear a clean suit so no one can get her cells? What would the black market for celebrity cells be like?
Forget that.... would she be responsible for child support?
If she were a man she probably would have to kick in 100 or 200k a month.
(a financially successful man, of course )
Interesting. So two Y-chromosomes and only paternal mitochondria.
The mitochondria probably isn't a problem since you're still only inheriting the egg-dad's mother's mitochondria.
And I'm making an assumption about the egg-generation process. Maybe that process was only able to generate eggs that had X-chromosomes. Or maybe the eggs generated with Y-chromosomes were all among the failures and helps explain the high failure rate. If they in fact created a decendent with no X-chromosome at all, that seems genetically risky.
I don't think 2 Y chromosomes is viable. X chromosome does a lot more than Y does (assuming mice are like people in their sex chromosomes). Maybe they have some way of making X only eggs. Or maybe that's part of why most of them weren't viable.
Most humans have an X Chromosome. It is the second X that makes you a female, or a Y that makes you male. So I would assume that when they "created an egg" from the tail cells of the male rodent, that means isolating and removing the Y Chromosome- this leaving the cell as containing only the X.
To the best of my knowledge, all humans have an X chromosome. You can have an extra Y (that is, XYY) giving you Jacob's Syndrome and in very rare cases, triple Y (also called 48,XYYY syndrome) and there are seven known cases of quadruple Y. But all have an X.
But yeah, I want to know more about how their process works. Do they in fact isolate and discard the Y? Or do they just make the egg and let the 50% that end up with a Y fail? Or do they somehow not fail?
In fact all humans have an X chromosome. YY is not viable.
Exactly. And not just nonviable but impossible.
The X chromosome contains approximately 2,000 genes, accounting for about 5% of the total DNA in the human genome.
Many of these genes are essential, playing diverse roles in cellular function. They can code for transcription factors, structural proteins like filaments, enzymes, and more. No mammal can survive without the genes found on the X chromosome.
In contrast, the Y chromosome carries only 50–60 genes, most of which are involved in determining male biological characteristics.
Yes, that is why there are some traits are only heritable from the mother in humans, because the Y chromosome has no complementary genes to many of the X chromosome genes so only the X traits are expressed
"The experiment was repeated 630 times. Although most of the pregnancies failed, seven healthy mice were born. "
Note that NOT ONCE does Mr Bailey deal with this basic fact. Instead he takes one or two sentences from detailed ethical arguments and hand-waves them away.
But you cannot skip this: 623 Mice died to give 7 healthy mice life. And if long term studies of these surviving mice were performed, Mr Bailey does not bother to mention them.
Make no mistake, applied to humans, we are talking about the unethical experimentation on human beings without their consent on an industrial scale, then- assuming a viable technique is honed- the creation and extermination of likely hundreds of "unviable" human fetuses for each child that is brought to term.
Mr Bailey blithely ignores this little detail and instead tantalizes us with heartwarming stories about older women, or a gay couple being able to create a child with their own genetic heritage. That's great- I'm all for living a better life. But we cannot overlook the cost of that better life. "Mr and Mrs Braum are finally able to live every German couple's dream life now that they have been provided with this surplus gold jewelry. How heartwarming. Oh, don't concern yourself with the smells coming from the forest off yonder- we have PROGRESS TO MAKE!"
I can acknowledge that not everyone agrees that the human being created at fertilization should have full human rights. I disagree, but I understand that there is room for argument. Nevertheless, that is an argument that must be had ESPECIALLY in an article purporting to summarize the ethical case for essentially creating, and destroying, millions of embryos to provide a child for a family that already has options (such as surrogacy and adoption).
And once we have identified the line where human rights begin, we must still confront an ethical conundrum. How can we be certain that a child brought to term with this technology will be able to live a healthy life? Dolly the Sheep was cloned almost 30 years ago and we still do not have mass Human Cloning because- despite Mr Bailey's sidestepping the issue- it is fraught with ethical concerns. A child brought to term using the same technology as Dolly the Sheep would likely have lived to around 30, suffering from severe arthritis and lung disease. We know that in an ethical scandal from China, children were cloned, but we do not know the status or prognosis of these children.
I like Mr Bailey because he tends to bring some interesting stories to this site. I especially liked his work vis a vis "The End of Scarcity". But like many people in thrall to The Science!™, he appeals to rationality and logic while remaining blind to his own natural human tendencies towards confirmation bias. His symposium of COVID Science last month was some of the most unbecoming attempts to recast the utter failure of The Science!™ as "not really that wrong". And this is yet another of countless articles on reproductive health over the past 20 years where Bailey has yet to confront the ethics of experimenting on human beings.
You really have to wrap your brain around a mere fertilized egg is not a life yet. It will do nothing at all by itself. It will never be anything until implantation, and it starts receiving hormones from the host. A zygote is not a life.
It is the start of life... for any organism. There is argument - life begins at a point and ends at a point. The beginning for mammals is the fertilization of the egg.
Why not the creation of the egg? Or of the sperm?
Life is a continuous process, not a discrete one. I think that's a better way to look at it in general. Life began several billion years ago and has continued just fine ever since. But we are individuals, so there needs to be a consideration of what delineates the existence of a human individual. I tend to think it has to have something to do with the human mind more than homo sapiens genes. But it's a tough question and I can't claim to know the right answer (or if there even is a right answer).
No, it's actually quite discrete.
You can leave an egg or a sperm cell in situ, and it will remain an egg or a sperm cell forever.
A zygote, however, will invariably develop into a morula, then a blastocyst, then an embryo, a fetus, a newborn, a toddler, a child, a tween, a teenager, a young adult, middle-aged, and eventually a senior.
It is indisputable that conception is when an individual human life begins.
It won’t develop into those stages if it is not implanted. You’ll have to develop an artificial womb.
Again, let's have that argument. But even if you and I accept that implantation is when human rights begins, hundreds upon hundreds of human lives will be implanted only to fail because they were created imperfectly- these will represent hundreds upon hundreds of human lives experimented upon and abused in the name of getting two dads a child with their eye color. This is an ethical dilemma that can't be ignored.
Sure it's a life. It's a genetically distinct organism of the human species that is unquestionably alive. The question is whether it is, morally speaking, a fully fledged human being with all the rights that come with that status.
^^This
You hit the ethical nail on the head. We do not yet have anything close to a social consensus on when independent life begins.
Conception is one possibility. It's clean, intuitively appealing and easy to define. I do not consider it a viable standard, however, because that premise leads to what I consider unacceptable conclusions about liability for miscarriages and other normal bodily and social interactions.
Fetal viability has some advantages but suffers from a very fuzzy definition that changes based on technological advancements and availability.
Birth is the traditional threshold. It is also easy to define and, for most of human history, was identical to fetal viability. But that has its own unpleasant logical consequences.
And of course going further back in history, you can find examples that set the legal threshold at weaning - a threshold that most moderns cannot even understand, much less agree to.
I certainly don't have the answer. But I know that we will never reach an answer to the abortion debate (or to any of these new ethical questions) unless we first reach consensus on the definition of independent life.
"We do not yet have anything close to a social consensus on when independent life begins."
Even if we did, under most agreed terms this research, as explained by Mr Bailey would be ethically problematic as soon as applied to humans. Imagine producing a child with no clear understanding of how much damage has been done to the genetic material used to produce them? Or damage caused by the process of bucking millions of years of evolutionary safeguards to use skin cells to create a fake egg? Those first children will be tantamount to taking a child hostage and putting them on a prototype airplane that has never been proven to work.
"because that premise leads to what I consider unacceptable conclusions about liability for miscarriages and other normal bodily and social interactions."
No it doesn't. There is no ethical conflict with a body naturally rejecting a child or other "normal bodily...interactions". Some people may TRY to make one, but the actual ethics are easy to follow. A person intending to harm a child is different than natural processes harming a child.
"Birth is the traditional threshold. It is also easy to define and, for most of human history, was identical to fetal viability. But that has its own unpleasant logical consequences."
It is not the traditional threshold. For hundreds of years, if not longer, the trend has been to ascribe human writes to the baby as soon as it was known to be there. This started with the baby bump, but then became the quickening. When doctors gained the technology and practices to investigate the embryos in the womb, these timelines were moved back- the trend has been that as soon as people discovered there was a distinct entity there, they moved to protect it as a distinct entity.
Nevertheless, this is a long argument, but the key point is that even if we agreed on a certain point- even birth- the advent of this technology means experimenting on human beings without their consent.
Bailey is logically loose on this so he justify doing as he wants.
Given worldwide abortion laws, not to mention ones in this country, the social consensus on when human life obtains moral value is definitely earlier than birth. In theory, even the Roe v Wade regime had it earlier than birth.
Quickening was a threshold and I should have remembered to add it to the list. It would generally fall between conception and fetal viability. Human rights, however, did not generally attach at quickening - or to the extent they did, they were an exceptionally limited set of rights.
I'm not aware of any society that used the "baby bump" as a threshold. It is simply too difficult to tell from 'I gained a little weight'. Also, it can be unusefully late (that is, after more reliable indicators like quickening) during conditions of malnutrition - conditions that were the norm for most of human history.
As long as we're attempting to be complete, we should probably also add 'fetal heartbeat' to the list and note that it suffers some of the same tech-variability problems as fetal viability.
All that said, your summary dismissal of the ethical difficulties of the conception threshold is an example of still not being on a useful path to social concensus. You are rebutting a strawman and not addressing all the social and legal consequences of that choice.
Again, regardless of where you put this boundary, the procedure above still violates ethical norms when applied to children.
That said, again, the course of human history has NOT been to try and determine some threshold when the baby is "baby enough". The trend was to treat the baby as a unique entity as soon as it was detected. No one said, "3 weeks after the quickening" or "5 weeks before birth". Instead, cultures- which did not have the capability to observe the embryo- were looking for the FIRST SIGN that a child was present.
It was only when science determined that conception was the point of a unique entity being found that people began to say, "well wait, sure the baby is there, but it isn't really a BABY."
A person intending to harm a child is different than natural processes harming a child.
And an accidental or natural death is different than a murder, but we still investigate deaths to rule out foul play. If deliberately ending the life of a fetus were legally considered murder, I don't see why suspicious miscarriages wouldn't be treated similarly to other suspicious deaths. I think that's a big part of the concern Rossami raises.
"And an accidental or natural death is different than a murder, but we still investigate deaths to rule out foul play."
Not in most cases. Unless you consider basic administrative work to be "Investigation". In the vast majority of human deaths, a doctor says, "This person died" and that's it. No one investigates anything. An investigation is only triggered AFTER evidence arrises to suggest that foul play was at work.
People treating this like some "gotcha" do not understand how child welfare works. Children ALL OVER THE COUNTRY wind up in the hospital or morgue due to accidents. They are not "investigated" unless some authority is given reason to believe that foul play was involved. And obviously, libertarians can believe that harming a child is wrong, while resisting a State that infringes on liberties by starting with the assumption that every miscarriage is an act of malice.
Correction: 623 mice tail cells died. That has to be a daily occurrence. I see you weeping no tears for all those cells.
The idea that tail cells are the same as a cell deliberately transformed to an egg, fertilized and gestated is logically unsound.
And I don't weep for any mice- they are not the same as human beings. But once a human egg is fertilized it is a human being, and deliberately experimenting on it is ethically wrong.
Good God! And Bailey thinks this is ethical and good???
"This follows from the reasonable presumption that parents generally seek to provide the best lives for their kids. The sorry history of eugenics in the U.S., where tens of thousands were forcibly sterilized during the 20th century, should make anyone cautious about government meddling in people's reproductive choices."
Bailey, the baddies were the one's trying to do the genetic modification/Eugenics you idiot. In this scenario, that's you! You're the baddie.
"This would allow same-sex couples to have natural offspring."
No. Not really.
Mouse genetic engineering is an order of difficulty easier than sheep genetic engineering, which is an order of difficulty easier than human genetic engineering.
Also, if they do manage to do it with humans, how many miscarriages and still births and early deaths will the gay couple put up with till they get a science baby that lives past one? 50? 60?
They did it 630 times for mice until they got seven that lived, and again, mice are infinitely easier than a higher primate.
"Perhaps even solo reproduction will be possible, with one man generating both the sperm and the egg."
Nope. Not with this technology, anyway.
Some day the mice are going to revolt.
"Perhaps even solo parenting would be possible."
That might be possible. Stupid in the extreme, though, as that would be the ultimate level of generation one incest possible, with all potential genetic hazards.
Can you do this? The better question is should you do thus and is there any good reason to do this.
Technically a clone, or the "parent's" identical twin.
Not necessarily. A Male has an XY chromosome pair. If they created a baby with XX Chromosomes (both harvested from their cells) they would not be a clone.
Yeah, not a clone. Just very, very inbred.
No, not a clone. What is being described is hermaphroditic self-fertilization. It is still sexual reproduction. It is just you could get two identical copies of the same chromosome in the child's pair. Which of you have a bad genetic defect on that chromosome pair could be devastating.
ya that's ethical
Each of those seven baby mice had two biological dads.
But no way to be born without a female. WEIRD!
You can bang those two bolts together all you want, but they're never going to hold up your chair on their own.
This would allow same-sex couples to have natural offspring.
Did you really just say that with a straight face?
give humans more freedom to have the lives they choose with the families of their dreams.
So, I'm going to go a little Catholic on you pagans and heretics and apostates here. What you just described there is quite literally Satan's Opening Act. I'm not kidding: Genesis 3. And he didn't offer lies - not overtly, at least - just temptation. "You certainly will not die! No, God knows well that the moment you eat of it you will be like gods who know what is good and what is bad."
And then they learned their lesson, hard and permanent. The Fall of Man. (But do not fear, you can be saved.)
And that's the temptation being dripped like the serpent's venom in Ronald's remark here. "The lives they choose," "the family of their dreams." Defy His design, ignore His will, break His Commandments, you don't answer to Him - you can BE Him, Ronald/Satan tempts.
The very first and Original Sin.
And if you don't like the Bible, I can even give you a more contemporary example vis-a-vis a pair of the worst villains ever: Lex Luthor and Brainiac.
Lex, of course, being a mere human that despises Superman primarily because of the fact that Lex isn't Superman and never can be (sound familiar)? And Brainiac being a construct that is singularly-programmed with collecting all data in the universe until it's the last and ONLY thing in the universe. Both obsessed with their own definition of Godhood.
The combined avarice is plain when they merge: "We'll remake the universe." And that's what Ronald/Lex/Brainiac are talking about here.
And if you don't like the Bible OR pop culture, here's a third one: this is some seriously "eugenics master race" type thought that's going on. Ron even points out that's kinda a bad thing, but then seems to side with it anyway because his NPC programming dictates "must. enable. LGBT Pedo."
And I'm sure that if I put the effort into it, I could come up with a litany of illustrations - art, literature, song, history - that similarly show the Fall Of Man for what it is. Defiance. A desire to deny and remove God, and replace Him with Self.
Y'know, most people (including many Christians) don't realize it - but the Law of Moses, the Ten Commandments? They're written in order starting with the most heinous and offensive sins.
#1: "I, the Lord, am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. You shall not have any other gods besides me."
That includes yourself. That one little sentence in Ronald's article - as innocuous as it may seem, as manipulatively written as if it's empowering freedom and autonomy, is literally the most evil thing in the world. The greatest temptation.
Reject God. Be your own god.
It will fail and result in destruction. Every. Single. Time. It's. Tried.
I like Ronald but his Religion of Science is rather disgusting. We should not be doing this. Is not the destruction of the family at the root of so much horror today?