Lab-grown sperm and eggs just a few years away, scientists say (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 week ago by babysandpiper@sopuli.xyz to c/science@lemmy.world

52 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Quest to create viable human sex cells in lab progressing rapidly, with huge implications for reproduction

Scientists are just a few years from creating viable human sex cells in the lab, according to an internationally renowned pioneer of the field, who says the advance could open up biology-defying possibilities for reproduction.

Speaking to the Guardian, Prof Katsuhiko Hayashi, a developmental geneticist at the University of Osaka, said rapid progress is being made towards being able to transform adult skin or blood cells into eggs and sperm, a feat of genetic conjury known as in-vitro gametogenesis (IVG).

His own lab is about seven years away from the milestone, he predicts. Other frontrunners include a team at the University of Kyoto and a California-based startup, Conception Biosciences, whose Silicon Valley backers include the OpenAI founder, Sam Altman and whose CEO told the Guardian that growing eggs in the lab “might be the best tool we have to reverse population decline” and could pave the way for human gene editing.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] School_Lunch@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

I'll never understand people who complain about population decline. It's a good thing. There are too many people here already. My thought on reading the headline was that it could be used in a different way. Everyone could be voluntarily sterilized, and then when they are ready and willing to have a kid they could use this new method to produce sex cells. No more unwanted pregnancies.

[-] Mediocre_Bard@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago

Population decline is not a problem for humanity. It is a problem for capitalism.

[-] DeathsEmbrace@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Even worse they're probably looking at the projection and seeing a loss of revenue directly related to population rates. They want more sheep to feed their money making systems.

[-] Onyxonblack@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 week ago

Well of course

[-] IhaveCrabs111@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

People would have lots of kids if each subsequent child didn’t make their existing family’s life much more difficult

[-] iopq@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

People used to have 5+ kids and it was considered fine. It's a cultural thing.

[-] IhaveCrabs111@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

The culture is linked to the income. People have more kids in poorer countries because they typically don’t have a social safety net so the only way to survive in old age is by having lots of children. When the countries become richer and get social security they start having less kids, especially when kids become a financial burden

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

Depopulation is a problem for any economic system. You can't run any form of government or economy when young workers aren't contributing to the tax base and the aging population requires more and more care.

Sure as clockwork someone will come along and say tax the rich. That only works for so long in this scenario. The rich get rich off our backs. No backs, no rich.

[-] LodeMike@lemmy.today 0 points 1 week ago

Not true lol

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

What a succinct, compelling argument!

[-] LodeMike@lemmy.today 1 points 1 week ago

Alright, ill do a mostly complete argument. Define depopulation please :3

[-] Mediocre_Bard@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

No, see, what if we just had way less people? Fuck taxes, fuck the economy, just have everyone commit to a one child policy. Yeah, I won't be able to sit on my ass and play WoW all day, but is that really helping anyone?

Responses will be delayed by WoW marathons.

[-] iopq@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

When you hit retirement, so will literally everyone else. You want to hire a nurse to wipe your ass because you can't, there's a 25 year waiting list because everyone is old.

Your one grandchild has 6 older people to take care of in addition to their one child (spouse exactly in the same position)

[-] Mediocre_Bard@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

Yeah? And? Intergenerational households are a thing. Communities are a thing. A culture of small communities would be, in my opinion, superior to this isolating capitalist society.

Pivoting now, why would I want anyone to wipe my ass? I'm not a king. If I die because my immediate community and I cannot take care of myself, then that's how it goes. I don't plan on living forever and I certainly don't plan on life being free of suffering. It is my sincere hope and goal to be the kind of person that people want in their lives. *I want to contribute positivity and love, which is, again, in my opinion, the pathway to a good life and thereby maintain a close community that helps one another. *

Third pivot. If, and I do mean IF, you read that last sentence and responded cynically, reflect on where that is coming from and let me know. (I have italicized the sentence for clarity.)

[-] iopq@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

Doesn't matter, you need working age people. A society can't function if it's all old people. Period

[-] Mediocre_Bard@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

I hear what you're saying but also see that you have introduced a new idea into the discussion.

I agree that a society comprised solely of the elderly would not work and am not proposing a society comprised of only elderly people. Limiting the number of children people have does not mean that there will be no children. It means that there will be less children. I concede that during the transition to a smaller population there will be periods of suffering as resources and communal abilities to provide care rebalance. However, I also think that is fine. There is no guarantee or promise of an easy or happy existence. That is not to say that there will not be ease and mirth, but rather that experiencing periods of suffering is also part of the human experience.

So, I return to where I started, and state again that declining population is only a concern for capitalism, but will now add that this is because it forces everyone into the same social status. It is less likely that there will be billionaires, millionaires, or independently wealthy non-workers in a society that is focused on existing in the moment. Without an abundance of lower-class people to exploit, I believe that equality would increase.

[-] iopq@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Why accept the suffering of having fewer workers? If the fertility rate of the world is around 2, there are enough workers to sustain a perfectly good life for everyone

You want it to get worse before it gets better, I don't believe it's necessary

[-] Mediocre_Bard@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Am I correct that you are proposing to stop population at two children per couple?

[-] iopq@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Not necessarily at that exact number, replacement is 2.1 which is what I'm actually proposing

[-] SonOfAntenora@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

That's the actual setup of ergo proxy...not that they are volountarily sterilised. The whole point us the artifucial womb. I don't know if you watched it but if you haven't, do it.

[-] oxideseven@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

Here's why.

https://youtu.be/Ufmu1WD2TSk

[-] iopq@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Who is going to take care of all the old people? AI?

load more comments (4 replies)

[-] SlartyBartFast@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 week ago

Production of humans without ties to historical family lines, would they have a number for a surname?

[-] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 week ago

Welcome to the brave new world order

And, in effect, eighty-three almost noseless black brachycephalic Deltas were cold-pressing. The fifty-six four-spindle chucking and turning machines were being manipulated by fifty-six aquiline and ginger Gammas. One hundred and seven heat-conditioned Epsilon Senegalese were working in the foundry. Thirty-three Delta females, long-headed, sandy, with narrow pelvises, and all within 20 millimetres of 1 metre 69 centimetres tall, were cutting screws. In the assembling room, the dynamos were being put together by two sets of Gamma-Plus dwarfs. The two low work-tables faced one another; between them crawled the conveyor with its load of separate parts; forty-seven blonde heads were confronted by forty-seven brown ones. Forty-seven snubs by forty-seven hooks; forty-seven receding by forty-seven prognathous chins. The completed mechanisms were inspected by eighteen identical curly auburn girls in Gamma green, packed in crates by thirty-four short-legged, left-handed male Delta-Minuses, and loaded into waiting trucks and lorries by sixty-three blue-eyed, flaxen and freckled Epsilon Semi-Morons.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokanovsky%27s_Process_(Brave_New_World)

[-] SlartyBartFast@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago

Funnily enough I think I read that novel like twenty years ago

[-] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 week ago

I still say it is/was much more prescient than 1984.

[-] Mothra@mander.xyz 11 points 1 week ago

Ah yes great I feel at ease now, knowing Sam Altman gives the thumbs up to this

That little voice telling me this is a very sharp double edged sword probably doesn't know shit

[-] untorquer@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

"Just a a few years away" means, "We are attempting to grift a billionaire", and it won't be achieved. I wish the company many well funded years of unprofitable operation.

[-] Mothra@mander.xyz 1 points 1 week ago

I hope you are so right, I really hope

[-] untorquer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Not like the story will end. This one's in the same cabinet as combatting aging.

[-] Onyxonblack@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago

Altman be praised! /s

[-] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

I read five lines into the news and thought "oh well shoot, now billionaires are going to try reverse the population decline due to the shitty world they created so that they can continue to generate labour and revenue and make the rest of us fight for resources in an over crowded world". And what do you know Sam Altman was the first shit face to confirm my speculations.

[-] Mothra@mander.xyz 2 points 1 week ago

I'm a bit dull to predict the future. But I can see we already have "ownership" of GMOs available for companies. The "Dire Wolves" that got resurrected that you don't hear about anymore belong to a company. We got plenty of examples of companies marketing something as positive, such as Monsanto saying they actually feed the planet and whatnot. Companies that start open source suddenly turning for profit. And unscrupulous governments and corruption.

And now you have unlocked the possibility of creating fully customized humans in a lab.

What could go wrong?

Don't get me wrong I totally see how the technology can also be used for good. That's what OpenAI says about their product, too.

[-] Onyxonblack@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 week ago

Yeah it's gonna be some Black Mirror shit

[-] _chris@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

Aha. So that's why they don't care if everyone but the billionaires die.

[-] kalkulat@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

I first read that as 'spam and eggs' and thought ... who the hell wants lab-grown spam?

[-] bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 1 points 1 week ago

Sshh, dear, don't cause a fuss. I'll have your spam. I love it. I'm having spam spam spam spam spam spam spam beaked beans spam spam spam and spam!

Vikings (singing): Spam spam spam spam. Lovely spam! Wonderful spam!

[-] Nastybutler@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

[-] Dr_Box@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Isnt this just cloning? Like if they grew sperm cells and eggs from my dandruff and combined them

[-] RotSteinFinke@feddit.org 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

No, it is something different. Cloning creates a another being with the exact same DNA. This would allow people, who can't produce viable sperm/egg cells, to reproduce with their partner. First patients would be infertile men and women.

[-] Breadhax0r@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

Would a sperm/egg combo from the same person not be a clone?

[-] RotSteinFinke@feddit.org 1 points 1 week ago

The sperm and the egg would contain different copies of the chromosomes. The cell randomly divides its chromosomes when it becomes an egg or sperm. When they merge, two halves of a genome form a full one again. But some chromosomes would be there as doubles, others would be lost. The effect would be the same as incest. Mutations that would be hidden in a healthy cell would emerge.

[-] Mothra@mander.xyz 1 points 1 week ago

I guess, if you manage to create both sperm and eggs from the same sample and then use it to create an embryo. It sounds prone to a lot of defects though, for the same reason it's not recommended to have offspring with your siblings. I don't think that's what they're going after here.

The presumption is that they would be able to combine sperm and eggs that are different enough to avoid this. Just like with any regular pregnancy.

Keep in mind we already know how to manipulate/edit genes to enhance or suppress traits. Being able to conceive an embryo in vitro means you can now create a human tailored to your liking, without even needing a womb. That's a couple steps beyond cloning.