Science Makes Sex Obsolete

lakroze · 2005-12-03, 11:44 AM

When the U.S. government decided to ignore the field of assisted reproduction, it unwittingly created the perfect conditions for bold -- some would say risky -- science and medicine.

Free from having to satisfy strict federal oversight, and supported by eager patients wanting children, some doctors performing in vitro fertilization, or IVF, turned their clinics into quasi-research centers. As a result, a string of innovations over the past three decades has stretched the boundaries of fertility science.

Most IVF doctors and researchers are not pursuing esoteric science. They tend to focus on tweaking existing techniques -- finding better ways to use drugs and trying out new gear -- because they'd rather focus on what they can offer patients sooner rather than later. But what may seem like a small alteration could altogether change what it means to make a baby, and who can make a genetically related baby (think same-sex couples).

Let's take a look at some of the possibilities coming down the pike.

Designer babies

The idea of "designer babies" is one of those concepts that is fun to discuss over a pitcher of Mojitos, but the practical reality is sobering.

Designer babies have already been born. Well over 1,000 children have been screened as embryos by preimplantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD. In PGD, a cell taken from an embryo is analyzed to see if the chromosomes or genes are normal. Families use PGD to weed out genetic diseases and to make a baby who will be immunologically compatible with an existing sibling in need of a blood or bone-marrow donation. More controversially, it can be, and has been, used to select the sex of babies.

But the term "designer baby" could become more literal.

In the Nov. 1, 2004, issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a team led by Ralph Brinster at the University of Pennsylvania managed to grow mouse "spermatagonial stem cells" in a dish. Also known as SSCs, they are the type of stem cells that eventually become sperm.

It gets even more interesting when you learn what Brinster did with sperm stem cells in 2001. In that study, he and his team changed the genetic program of SSCs. Because these are sex cells, any changes scientists might introduce to their genes will be carried from generation to generation. This is called a "germ line" change, and it's a line that the majority of bioethicists agree should not be crossed, because it raises the specter of DNA eugenics.

So in theory, this technology could lead to a way to make sperm for infertile men, which most people would agree would be a great outcome. But scientists would also have the ability to alter the sperm genes so every succeeding generation would carry the change.

"SSCs provide an alternative method to modify the germ line of animals," Brinster and his team wrote, adding that changing the soup the cells soak in could change their genetics, and "identical or similar signaling mechanisms and culture requirements are likely to be applicable to other species," including humans.

Brinster wants to use the technology as a therapy, as a study tool and to make new kinds of lab animals. But it doesn't take many Mojitos to come up with a whole lot of other possibilities, too.

http://www.wired.com/news/technolog...html?tw=rss.TEK

2005-12-03, 11:44 AM	#1
lakroze Banned Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 12	Science Makes Sex Obsolete When the U.S. government decided to ignore the field of assisted reproduction, it unwittingly created the perfect conditions for bold -- some would say risky -- science and medicine. Free from having to satisfy strict federal oversight, and supported by eager patients wanting children, some doctors performing in vitro fertilization, or IVF, turned their clinics into quasi-research centers. As a result, a string of innovations over the past three decades has stretched the boundaries of fertility science. Most IVF doctors and researchers are not pursuing esoteric science. They tend to focus on tweaking existing techniques -- finding better ways to use drugs and trying out new gear -- because they'd rather focus on what they can offer patients sooner rather than later. But what may seem like a small alteration could altogether change what it means to make a baby, and who can make a genetically related baby (think same-sex couples). Let's take a look at some of the possibilities coming down the pike. Designer babies The idea of "designer babies" is one of those concepts that is fun to discuss over a pitcher of Mojitos, but the practical reality is sobering. Designer babies have already been born. Well over 1,000 children have been screened as embryos by preimplantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD. In PGD, a cell taken from an embryo is analyzed to see if the chromosomes or genes are normal. Families use PGD to weed out genetic diseases and to make a baby who will be immunologically compatible with an existing sibling in need of a blood or bone-marrow donation. More controversially, it can be, and has been, used to select the sex of babies. But the term "designer baby" could become more literal. In the Nov. 1, 2004, issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a team led by Ralph Brinster at the University of Pennsylvania managed to grow mouse "spermatagonial stem cells" in a dish. Also known as SSCs, they are the type of stem cells that eventually become sperm. It gets even more interesting when you learn what Brinster did with sperm stem cells in 2001. In that study, he and his team changed the genetic program of SSCs. Because these are sex cells, any changes scientists might introduce to their genes will be carried from generation to generation. This is called a "germ line" change, and it's a line that the majority of bioethicists agree should not be crossed, because it raises the specter of DNA eugenics. So in theory, this technology could lead to a way to make sperm for infertile men, which most people would agree would be a great outcome. But scientists would also have the ability to alter the sperm genes so every succeeding generation would carry the change. "SSCs provide an alternative method to modify the germ line of animals," Brinster and his team wrote, adding that changing the soup the cells soak in could change their genetics, and "identical or similar signaling mechanisms and culture requirements are likely to be applicable to other species," including humans. Brinster wants to use the technology as a therapy, as a study tool and to make new kinds of lab animals. But it doesn't take many Mojitos to come up with a whole lot of other possibilities, too. http://www.wired.com/news/technolog...html?tw=rss.TEK