Mass-producing eggs and sperm in a laboratory in order to have a baby with yourself or three other people in a “multiplex” parenting arrangement might sound like the plot of a dystopian novel.
But these startling scenarios are under consideration by the UK’s fertility watchdog, which has concluded that the technology could be on the brink of viability.
Bolstered by Silicon Valley investment, scientists are making such rapid progress that lab-grown human eggs and sperm could be a reality within a decade, a meeting of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority board heard last week.
In-vitro gametes (IVGs), eggs or sperm that are created in the lab from genetically reprogrammed skin or stem cells, are viewed as the holy grail of fertility research.
The technology promises to remove age barriers to conception and could pave the way for same-sex couples to have biological children together. It also poses unprecedented medical and ethical risks, which the HFEA now believes need to be considered in a proposed overhaul of fertility laws.
Peter Thompson, chief executive of the HFEA, said: “In-vitro gametes have the potential to vastly increase the availability of human sperm and eggs for research and, if proved safe, effective, and publicly acceptable, to provide new fertility treatment options for men with low sperm counts and women with low ovarian reserve.”
The technology also heralds more radical possibilities including “solo parenting” and “multiplex parenting”. Julia Chain, chair of HFEA, said: “It feels like we ought to have Steven Spielberg on this committee,” in a brief moment of levity in the discussion of how technology should be regulated.
Lab-grown eggs have already been used produce healthy babies in mice – including ones with two biological fathers. The equivalent feat is yet to be achieved using human cells, but US startups such as Conception and Gameto claim to be closing in on this prize.
The HFEA meeting noted that estimated timeframes ranged from two to three years – deemed to be optimistic – to a decade, with several clinicians at the meeting sharing the view that IVGs appeared destined to become “a routine part of clinical practice”.
The clinical use of IVGs would be prohibited under current law and there would be significant hurdles to proving that IVGs are safe, given that any unintended genetic changes to the cells would be passed down to all future generations.
The technology also opens up myriad ethical issues.
Solo parenting – not to be confused with social single parenting – would involve creating the egg and the sperm from the same individual. This creates a huge vulnerability to recessive genetic disorders, caused by faulty genes that most people carry, but that are normally not affected by due to carrying two copies of every gene: one maternal copy and one paternal copy.
But a baby with only one parent would be much more likely to lack a safe backup copy for faulty genes. Frances Flinter, emeritus professor of clinical genetics at King’s College London, who is an HFEA member, told the meeting: “In a way, it’s the complete extreme of incest. And that is why it is so dangerous and why nobody would ever consider that to be a safe thing to do.”
Solo parenting, members agreed, would need to be banned.
after newsletter promotion
By contrast, there might be a case for permitting multiplex parenting, which does not pose the same biological risks and has – to some extent – a social precedent in the form of blended families or those who maintain a relationship with non-anonymous donors. In multiplex parenting, two couples produce two embryos and cells from these embryos would be used to derive eggs and sperm in the lab to create a final embryo.
Rebecca Taylor, HFEA’s scientific policy manager, said: “In the final embryo, the four parents would actually genetically be the child’s grandparents. The parents would be an embryo, if that makes sense.”
Other potential ethical concerns include the ability to create huge numbers of embryos in the lab, which could make it possible to carry out far more extensive screening.
In regions where screening is less regulated than in the UK, where it is only permitted to test for serious disease-causing mutations, this could tip into a form of eugenics, whereby desirable traits might be selected, the HFEA said.
The reduction in age barriers might also create new challenges such as higher-risk pregnancies in older mothers, and children born to much older parents.
Thompson said: “Research on IVGs is progressing quickly but it is not yet clear when they might be a viable option in treatment. IVGs raise important questions and that is why the HFEA has recommended that they should be subject to statutory regulation in time, and that biologically dangerous use of IVGs in treatment should never be permitted.
“This is the latest of a range of detailed recommendations on scientific developments that we are looking at to future-proof the HFE Act, but any decisions around UK modernising fertility law are a matter for parliament.”
