What's new

Making babies without eggs may be possible, say scientists

onebyone

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Messages
7,550
Reaction score
-6
Country
Thailand
Location
Thailand
_91176637_c0206627-sperm_and_ovum_artwork-spl.jpg
Image copyrightSPL

Scientists say early experiments suggest it may one day be possible to make babies without using eggs.

They have succeeded in creating healthy baby mice by tricking sperm into believing they were fertilising normal eggs.

The findings in Nature Communications, could, in the distant future, mean women can be removed from the baby-making process, say the researchers.

For now, the work helps to explain some of the details of fertilisation.

End of mum and dad?
The University of Bath scientists started with an unfertilised egg in their experiments.

They used chemicals to trick it into becoming a pseudo-embryo.

These "fake" embryos share much in common with ordinary cells, such as skin cells, in the way they divide and control their DNA.

The researchers reasoned that if injecting sperm into mouse pseudo-embryos could produce healthy babies, then it might one day be possible to achieve a similar result in humans using cells that are not from eggs.

_91174884_baby.jpg
Image copyrightTONY PERRY
In the mouse experiments, the odds of achieving a successful pregnancy was one in four.

Dr Tony Perry, one of the researchers, told the BBC News website: "This is the first time that anyone has been able to show that anything other than an egg can combine with a sperm in this way to give rise to offspring.

"It overturns nearly 200 years of thinking."

Those baby mice were healthy, had a normal life expectancy and had healthy pups of their own.

Fertilisation
The goal of the researchers is to understand the exact mechanisms of fertilisation because what happens when a sperm fuses with an egg is still a bit of a mystery.

For example, the egg completely strips the sperm's DNA of all its chemical clothing and re-dresses it.

That stops the sperm behaving like a sperm and makes it act like an embryo, but how the "costume change" takes place is not clear.

Removing the need for an egg could have a wider impact on society.

Dr Perry said: "One possibility, in the distant future, is that it might be possible that ordinary cells in the body can be combined with a sperm so that an embryo is formed."

In other words, two men could have a child, with one donating an ordinary cell and the other, sperm.

Or one man could have his own child using his own cells and sperm - with that child being more like a non-identical twin than a clone.

Dr Perry stressed that such scenarios were still "speculative and fanciful" at this stage.

Earlier this year in China, scientists were able to make sperm from stem cells and then fertilise an egg to produce healthy mice.

Dr Perry suggested that combining the two fields of research may eventually do without the need for sperm and eggs altogether.

Prof Robin Lovell-Badge, from the Francis Crick Institute, commented: "I'm not surprised that the authors are excited about this.

"I think it is a very interesting paper, and a technical tour de force and I am sure it will tell us something important about reprogramming at these early steps of development that are relevant to both fertilisation and single cell nuclear transfer [cloning].

"And, perhaps more broadly, about reprogramming of cell fate in other situations.

"It doesn't yet tell us how, but the paper gives a number of clear pointers."

Follow James on Twitter.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-37337215
 
. .
Scientists are doing so many bullsh!t things these days.

Producing your own 'child' with your own cell and sperm? **** that! I want to mate with a girl and produce "our" baby and take care of it---as humans are/have designed/evolved to do.

I wouldn't have same love and affection for my own "creature" then for my child born as a result of a loving mating and union of me and my partner.
 
.
as humans are/have designed/evolved to do.
If you're anti-modification, how did you kill dinner, with a knife or your hands?

What gives you the right to call a creation a "Creature" not worth loving simply because of how it was created? Never heard of infertility...
 
. .
If you're anti-modification, how did you kill dinner, with a knife or your hands?

What gives you the right to call a creation a "Creature" not worth loving simply because of how it was created? Never heard of infertility...

What?

That's the most stupid argument!

"Dinner"?!

Dude, nobody is talking against advancement. I am talking about 'robotification' of humanity itself--not the enhance of civilization.

I am all for advancing, exploring, building---but if somebody comes up with "If we replace humans' natural form and merge them with advance robotic brains, supers will be ultra intelligent hybrids"..I'll be STRICTLY against it.

Let's advance our civilization and culture, but lets not lose ourselves as a specie itself!!
 
. .
llU4EL4.png



40248717.jpg




This gen is lucky to enjoy things naturally, probably some of the upcoming generations will miss all the fun ...
 
.
llU4EL4.png



40248717.jpg




This gen is lucky to enjoy things naturally, probably some of the upcoming generations will miss all the fun ...
The fun wont be missed just the whole child creation process will get zero mortality
 
.
An ideal Atheist world where no emotional support of two parents just science is enough. :lol:
 
.
What?

That's the most stupid argument!

"Dinner"?!

Dude, nobody is talking against advancement. I am talking about 'robotification' of humanity itself--not the enhance of civilization.

I am all for advancing, exploring, building---but if somebody comes up with "If we replace humans' natural form and merge them with advance robotic brains, supers will be ultra intelligent hybrids"..I'll be STRICTLY against it.

Let's advance our civilization and culture, but lets not lose ourselves as a specie itself!!
You're arguing against giving infertile individuals a chance at procreating, something you take for granted. Not sure if that argument is A) stupid; B) hateful; C) product of fear; or D) an opinion.

:undecided:

:pop:
 
.
Somehow I am not very comfortable with all these research, and i don't know in what way it will lead us. Only thing that seprate us from mechanical thing's are our emotions and attachments. Once the child are born in artificial womb with only only somatic cells there won't be much of attachment between parents and child. One main reason why mother have such greater attachment and emotion towards child is because she keeps the child within herself for 9 months, giving it food and blood and cleaning it's mess. Mothers will lose their emotional benevolence towards child. I don't know in which direction our society will head then.
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom