tag:theconversation.com,2011:/africa/topics/gametes-43784/articlesGametes – The Conversation2023-12-14T19:19:48Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2190052023-12-14T19:19:48Z2023-12-14T19:19:48ZEggs from men, sperm from women: how stem cell science may change how we reproduce<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/564442/original/file-20231208-17-22yb4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C1000%2C748&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/morula-early-stage-embryo-consisting-cells-776035219">nobeastsofierce/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It may soon be possible to coax human skin cells into becoming functional eggs and sperm using a technique known as “in vitro gametogenesis”. This involves the creation (genesis) of eggs and sperm (gametes) outside the human body (in vitro). </p>
<p>In theory, a skin cell from a man could be turned into an egg and a skin cell from a woman can become a sperm. Then there’s the possibility of a child having multiple genetically-related parents, or only one.</p>
<p>Some scientists believe human applications of in vitro gametogenesis are a <a href="https://www.statnews.com/2023/10/02/ivg-ivf-replacement-reproductive-technology-hype/">long way off</a>. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1708819232077533218"}"></div></p>
<p>However, scientists who work on human stem cells are <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10579208/">actively working</a> on overcoming the barriers. <a href="https://www.statnews.com/2023/04/08/ivf-eggs-hormones-gameto-reproductive-fertilo/">New</a> <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/10/28/1038172/conception-eggs-reproduction-vitro-gametogenesis/">biotechnology</a> <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/04/24/the-future-of-fertility">start-ups</a> are also seeking to commercialise this technology.</p>
<p>Here’s what we know about the prospect of human in vitro gametogenesis and why we need to start talking about this now.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-are-stem-cells-14391">Explainer: what are stem cells?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Is the technology available?</h2>
<p>In vitro gametogenesis begins with “pluripotent stem cells”, a kind of cell that can develop into many different cell types. The aim is to persuade these stem cells to become eggs or sperm.</p>
<p>These techniques could use stem cells taken from early embryos. But scientists have also worked out how to <a href="https://www.eurostemcell.org/stemcellshorts-what-are-induced-pluripotent-stem-cells">revert adult cells</a> to a pluripotent state. This opens up the possibility of creating eggs or sperm that “belong to” an existing human adult.</p>
<p>Animal studies have been promising. In <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/490146b">2012</a>, scientists created live-born baby mice using eggs that began their life as skin cells on a mouse tail.</p>
<p>More recently, the technique has been used to facilitate same-sex reproduction. Earlier this year, scientists created mouse pups with <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00717-7">two genetic fathers</a> after transforming skin cells from male mice into eggs. Mouse pups with <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06999-6">two genetic mothers</a> have also been created.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1ocWjHJgKcc?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">How scientists bred mice with two fathers.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Scientists have not yet managed to adapt these techniques to create human gametes. Perhaps because the technology is still in its infancy, Australia’s legal and regulatory systems do not address whether and how the technology should be used. </p>
<p>For example, the National Health and Medical Research Council’s <a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/art">assisted reproduction guidelines</a>, which were updated in 2023, do not include specific guidance for in vitro-derived gametes. These guidelines will need to be updated if in vitro gametogenesis becomes viable in humans.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-future-of-stem-cells-tackling-hype-versus-hope-72052">The future of stem cells: tackling hype versus hope</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>The potential</h2>
<p>There are three distinct clinical applications of this technology.</p>
<p>First, in vitro gametogenesis could streamline IVF. Egg retrieval currently involves repeated hormone injections, a minor surgical procedure, and the <a href="https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/ovarian-hyperstimulation-syndrome-ohss/symptoms-causes/syc-20354697">risk</a> of overstimulating the ovaries. In vitro gametogenesis could eliminate these problems.</p>
<p>Second, the technology could circumvent some forms of medical infertility. For example, it could be used to generate eggs for women born without functioning ovaries or following early menopause.</p>
<p>Third, the technology could allow same-sex couples to have children who are genetically related to both parents.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/promising-assisted-reproductive-technologies-come-with-ethical-legal-and-social-challenges-a-developmental-biologist-and-a-bioethicist-discuss-ivf-abortion-and-the-mice-with-two-dads-208276">Promising assisted reproductive technologies come with ethical, legal and social challenges – a developmental biologist and a bioethicist discuss IVF, abortion and the mice with two dads</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Legal, regulatory and ethical issues</h2>
<p>If the technology becomes viable, in vitro gametogenesis will alter the dynamics of how we create families in unprecedented ways. How we should respond requires careful consideration.</p>
<p><strong>1. Is it safe?</strong></p>
<p>Careful trials, rigorous monitoring, and follow-up of any children born will be essential – as it has been for other <a href="https://theconversation.com/maeves-law-would-let-ivf-parents-access-technology-to-prevent-mitochondrial-disease-heres-what-the-senate-is-debating-176668">reproductive</a> <a href="https://theconversation.com/rest-assured-ivf-babies-grow-into-healthy-adults-23432">technologies</a>, including IVF.</p>
<p><strong>2. Is it equitable?</strong></p>
<p>Other issues relate to access. It might seem unjust if the technology is only available to the wealthy. Public funding could help – but whether this is appropriate depends on whether the state <a href="https://theconversation.com/ideas-for-australia-rethinking-funding-and-priorities-in-ivf-should-the-state-pay-for-people-to-have-babies-57036">ought to support</a> people’s reproductive projects.</p>
<p><strong>3. Should we restrict access?</strong></p>
<p>For instance, pregnancy is rare in older women, largely because egg count and quality <a href="https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/conditionsandtreatments/age-and-fertility">decline with age</a>. In vitro gametogenesis would theoretically provide “fresh” eggs for women of any age. But helping older women become parents is <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5566409/">controversial</a>, due to physical, psychological and other factors associated with having babies later in life.</p>
<p><strong>4. We’d still need surrogates</strong></p>
<p>If we took skin cells from each male partner and created an embryo, that embryo would still need a surrogate to carry the pregnancy. Unfortunately, Australia has a shortfall of surrogates. International surrogacy provides an alternative, but carries <a href="https://theconversation.com/its-hard-to-find-a-surrogate-in-australia-but-heading-overseas-comes-with-risks-206182">legal, ethical and practical difficulties</a>. Unless access to surrogacy is improved domestically, benefits to male couples will be limited. </p>
<p><strong>5. Who are the legal parents?</strong></p>
<p>In vitro gametogenesis also raises questions about who are the future child’s legal parents. We already see related legal debates surrounding non-traditional families formed through surrogacy, egg donation and sperm donation. </p>
<p>In vitro gametogenesis could theoretically also be used to create children with more than two genetic parents, or with only one. These possibilities likewise require us to update our current understandings of parenthood.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/we-may-one-day-grow-babies-outside-the-womb-but-there-are-many-things-to-consider-first-125709">We may one day grow babies outside the womb, but there are many things to consider first</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>How far is too far?</h2>
<p>Of the potential uses already mentioned, same-sex reproduction is the most controversial. The reproductive limitations imposed by being in a same-sex relationship are sometimes seen as a “social” form of infertility the medical profession is not obligated to fix.</p>
<p>The moral stakes, however, are virtually identical regardless of whether in vitro gametogenesis is used by same-sex or opposite-sex couples. Both uses of the technology fulfil exactly the same goal: helping couples fulfil their desire to have a child genetically related to both parents. It would be unjust to deny access to only one of these groups.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/564457/original/file-20231208-21-83z5z9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Same-sex female couple cooking in kitchen, one feeding the other fruit" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/564457/original/file-20231208-21-83z5z9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/564457/original/file-20231208-21-83z5z9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/564457/original/file-20231208-21-83z5z9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/564457/original/file-20231208-21-83z5z9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/564457/original/file-20231208-21-83z5z9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/564457/original/file-20231208-21-83z5z9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/564457/original/file-20231208-21-83z5z9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Who should have access to this technology? How about same-sex couples?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/lesbian-couple-cooking-kitchen-together-1071305168">Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But same-sex reproduction is only the tip of the iceberg. In vitro gametogenesis could theoretically facilitate “<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6973109/">solo reproduction</a>” by deriving both eggs and sperm from the same individual. Interestingly, a child created this way would not be a clone of its parent, since the process of gamete formation would shuffle the parent’s genetic material and create a genetically distinct individual.</p>
<p>Or people could engage in “<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4215291/">multiplex parenting</a>” combining genetic material from more than two individuals. Imagine, for example, that two couples create embryos via IVF. In vitro gametogenesis could then be used to derive eggs and sperm from each of these two separate embryos, which could subsequently be used to conceive a single child that is genetically related to all four adults.</p>
<p>Finally, in vitro gametogenesis could revolutionise prenatal genetic selection. We’d have <a href="https://rmanetwork.com/blog/number-of-eggs-good-ivf-in-vitro-fertilization/">many more embryos</a> than available during regular IVF to screen for genetic diseases and traits.</p>
<p>So it would be urgent to discuss “designer babies”, eugenics, and whether we have a <a href="https://bioedge.org/bioethics-d75/savulescu-interviewed-on-procreative-beneficence/">moral obligation</a> to conceive children with the best chance of a good life.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/worlds-first-synthetic-embryo-why-this-research-is-more-important-than-you-think-188217">World's first 'synthetic embryo': why this research is more important than you think</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>We need to start talking about this now</h2>
<p>Both law and ethics can lag behind new technologies, particularly when their implications are as profound and far-reaching as the implications of in vitro gametogenesis.</p>
<p>We need to discuss how this technology should be regulated before it is rolled out. Given how rapidly the science is developing, we should begin this discussion now. </p>
<hr>
<p><em>Laura Smith, a masters student from Monash University, contributed to this article.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/219005/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Julian Koplin receives research funding from Ferring Pharmaceuticals for an unrelated project.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Neera Bhatia receives funding from UKRI Arts and Humanities Research Council for an unrelated project.</span></em></p>The technology may be here sooner than we think. But we have so much to discuss first.Julian Koplin, Lecturer in Bioethics, Monash University & Honorary fellow, Melbourne Law School, Monash UniversityNeera Bhatia, Associate Professor in Law, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1694192021-11-03T19:22:42Z2021-11-03T19:22:42ZNot all women who freeze their eggs want to have children<p>Since the development of ultra-rapid egg freezing <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23083924/">around 2013</a>, more and more women worldwide are choosing to undergo the procedure. <a href="https://www.hfea.gov.uk/about-us/publications/research-and-data/fertility-treatment-2018-trends-and-figures/">In the UK</a>, egg freezing has increased by 240% in recent years, from 569 completed cycles in 2013 to 1,933 in 2018. In France, according to my research, around 2,500 women freeze their eggs each year.</p>
<p>Egg freezing gained increased international popularity in 2014, when <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/15/apple-facebook-offer-freeze-eggs-female-employees">Apple and Facebook announced</a> they would cover the procedure for female employees who wanted it. The aim at the time was to allow women to balance motherhood with working life.</p>
<p>Such associations lead to a “careerist” image of women who freeze their eggs in the name of the working life. But most of the research published to date indicates that it is the <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30074130/">absence of a partner</a> rather than the pursuit of education or a career that is the main motivation for egg freezing.</p>
<p>Other <a href="https://dora.dmu.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/2086/13109/Baldwin%20%282016%29%20Ice%2c%20Ice%2c%20Baby%20A%20Sociological%20Exploration%20of%20Social%20Egg%20Freezing%20PhD%20Thesis.pdf">studies</a> on the topic suggest that women who freeze their eggs have a strong desire for children. But not all <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28077428/">women who have children after egg freezing</a> do so with their frozen ova. Indeed, the return rate is <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26688429/">less than 10%</a>.</p>
<p>This raises the question: why do women freeze their eggs, if not to use them later? My <a href="http://www.theses.fr/2021EHES0049">doctoral research</a> in social anthropology and ethnology examined this question.</p>
<h2>The borderline between motherhood and childfree</h2>
<p>I conducted 43 interviews with French women who had frozen their eggs for age-related or medical reasons, or who taken part in egg donation.</p>
<p>Although a majority of the women I spoke to expressed a desire for a child, a third said they felt uncertain about having children, while five said they wanted to remain childfree.</p>
<p>In their testimonies, the women who were unsure or who didn’t want children often placed themselves on the borderline between wanting and not wanting to become mothers. Ilka*, 39, said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“I took this step to confront the question of whether I really want children or whether I want them at all costs. So, I don’t fall into the category of ‘I don’t want them at all’ or ‘I want them at all costs’.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This was also the case for Rosalinda*, 34, who froze her eggs for medical reasons and also for egg donation:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“I don’t know if I want a child. Every time I’m asked the question: ‘You don’t want a child now. What about later?’ I don’t want one, full stop. Maybe later, I don’t know.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>For these women, egg freezing allowed them to confront the question of their “true” desire for a child without losing the possibility of conceiving altogether. Faced with potential infertility associated with ageing, medical treatment or illness, they feared they would no longer be able to give birth, if the desire one day arose. Egg freezing offered them a kind of prolongation of uncertainty until one or other option becomes obvious.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/428237/original/file-20211025-19-txy0yk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A liquid nitrogen bank containing sperm and egg samples" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/428237/original/file-20211025-19-txy0yk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/428237/original/file-20211025-19-txy0yk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428237/original/file-20211025-19-txy0yk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428237/original/file-20211025-19-txy0yk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428237/original/file-20211025-19-txy0yk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428237/original/file-20211025-19-txy0yk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428237/original/file-20211025-19-txy0yk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Freezing eggs allows women to prolong the uncertainty around having children.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/fr/image-photo/liquid-nitrogen-bank-containing-sperm-eggs-348353672">Elena Pavlovich/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The decision not to have children is a difficult and <a href="https://www.cairn.info/revue-population-et-societes-2014-2-page-1.htm">socially marginalised</a> one for women to make, both from a social and personal point of view. They are frequently questioned about their choices. In my study, even these the women who said they definitely did not want children expressed the fear of regretting not having had them in future.</p>
<p>Rita*, 35, explained her decision to freeze her eggs this way:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“I don’t want to have a child. I am 35 years old. I don’t want to. I’ve never wanted to, but I know that you can change. I tell myself that if one day I change my mind, I will have planned for this option.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Tania*, 32, had her eggs frozen after being diagnosed with breast cancer. She said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“I have evolved in my relationship with the world and have become increasingly firm and radical about what I want. Not only do I not want a child, I don’t particularly want to be in a couple either.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Tania talked about egg freezing as a “well-directed choice” at the time. She said she and her doctors considered it to be the right option after her cancer diagnosis, a moment of psychological distress when making a decision about having children in future would have been difficult.</p>
<h2>All doors open</h2>
<p>My research shows that some women undertake an arduous and psychologically costly journey for a purpose that is not necessarily reproductive. Having frozen eggs places these women not in the “childless” group, but in the “not-yet-mothers” group.</p>
<p>Egg freezing seems to leave women with all doors open. It aims to give them a chance of childbearing in the future. It also allows them to make the choice, temporary or permanent, to be childfree without completely losing the possibility of having children later.</p>
<p>The decision to freeze eggs thus offers a temporary medical response to the uncertainty associated with motherhood in the modern age.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>* All names have been changed for privacy reasons.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/169419/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Yolinliztli Pérez-Hernández has received funding from the Biomedicine Agency (ABM) and the National Council for Science and Technology (CONACyT, Mexico).</span></em></p>Why do women freeze their eggs? My research shows it’s for a range of reasons, and not always due to a desire to become a mother.Yolinliztli Pérez-Hernández, Docteure en Anthropologie sociale et ethnologie, Institut National d'Études Démographiques (INED)Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/941972018-04-02T22:18:05Z2018-04-02T22:18:05ZPaying surrogates, sperm and egg donors goes against Canadian values<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/212772/original/file-20180401-189804-15d9agr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A Canadian politician has announced he plans to introduce a private member’s bill to remove the legal prohibitions on payments to surrogate mothers and to sperm and egg donors.
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In Canada, it’s illegal to pay for the services of a surrogate mother or to purchase human gametes — sperm and eggs. These prohibitions are entrenched in the <a href="http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/a-13.4/">Assisted Human Reproduction Act</a>. Some Liberal members of Parliament want to change this.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/Anthony-Housefather">Anthony Housefather</a>, MP for Mount Royal and chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, recently held a <a href="https://www.facebook.com/anthonyhousefather/videos/1877831872257893/">news conference</a> to announce that he plans to introduce a private member’s bill to remove the legal prohibitions on payments.</p>
<p>Flanked by fertility doctors, lawyers, intended parents, surrogates and fertility agents, Housefather argued that Canadians should be able to pay — and be paid — for surrogacy, as well as human sperm and eggs.</p>
<p>But the planned private member’s bill is <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1197697091796">ill-conceived</a> (pun intended) <a href="https://impactethics.ca/2018/04/02/lets-ask-a-different-question-about-surrogacy/">for several reasons</a>.</p>
<h2>‘Sound ethical reasons’</h2>
<p>At the outset, it’s important to remember there are sound ethical reasons to prohibit “<a href="http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/a-13.4/page-1.html#h-2">trade in the reproductive capabilities of women and men and the exploitation of children, women and men for commercial ends</a>,” as stated in the Assisted Human Reproduction Act. </p>
<p>Among these reasons are the need to avoid both the commodification of the human body and the twin risks of exploitation and coercion. That’s why the federal government introduced criminal prohibitions on payment for surrogacy as well as human sperm and eggs in 2004. </p>
<p>Why criminal prohibitions? Because according to our Constitution, the only mechanism available to the federal government to enforce a ban on payment is criminal law. The division of powers between the federal and provincial governments is such that health is a provincial responsibility and criminal law is a federal responsibility. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/212771/original/file-20180401-189821-1fju5u7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/212771/original/file-20180401-189821-1fju5u7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/212771/original/file-20180401-189821-1fju5u7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/212771/original/file-20180401-189821-1fju5u7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/212771/original/file-20180401-189821-1fju5u7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/212771/original/file-20180401-189821-1fju5u7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/212771/original/file-20180401-189821-1fju5u7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Anthony Housefather, MP for Mont Royal, says he plans to introduce a private member’s bill to remove the legal prohibitions on payments to surrogate mothers or for sperm or eggs.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Liberal.ca</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Assisted Human Reproduction Act was carefully drafted to ensure that access to reproductive technologies would not be a gateway to commerce in the body. This was a challenging piece of legislation to craft, involving considerable study, consultation and compromise. </p>
<p>The process began in the mid-1980s with the call for a <a href="http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/new-reproductive-technologies-royal-commission-on/">Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies </a> and continued through the 1990s and into the 2000s. It included numerous consultations with stakeholders and the public, several failed attempts at legislation and very careful consideration of how this issue should move forward.</p>
<h2>Act outdated?</h2>
<p>When the act finally passed 14 years ago, there was all-party agreement that payment for surrogacy and sperm and eggs was not the way forward. </p>
<p>Housefather suggests that the act is outdated; that it did not anticipate the creation of non-traditional families. But this is inaccurate. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.dailyxtra.com/gay-bloc-mp-real-menard-leaves-federal-politics-35895">Réal Ménard,</a> for example, one of the first openly gay MPs, worked with members of the LGBTQ community to ensure that sexual orientation would not be a barrier to access. It’s important not to ignore or misrepresent the intense challenges of a legislative process that was nearly 30 years in the making. </p>
<p>Housefather also suggests that Canadian values have changed since the act came into force. However, recent public commitment to <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/the-sunday-edition-march-4-2018-1.4559064/canadian-blood-services-ceo-responds-to-listener-mail-1.4559077">keeping payment out of the blood supply system</a> indicates that Canadian values about payment for bodily tissues may not have changed all that much.</p>
<p>The Assisted Human Reproduction Act permits reimbursement of receipted expenditures for surrogates and gamete donors in accordance with regulations. The problem with this feature of the act, however, is that there are no published regulations. This is finally about to change. </p>
<p>After many years of inaction, Health Canada has made a public commitment to <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/programs/consultation-assisted-human-reproduction/document.html">strengthen the Assisted Human Reproduction Act</a> that includes drafting the regulations for reimbursement. </p>
<p>These long-anticipated regulations will provide much-needed clarity and transparency. Housefather’s proposed bill will undermine the development of the regulations by attempting to eliminate the framework for reimbursement completely. </p>
<p>The federal government has an obligation to address the health and safety of surrogates, sperm donors and egg donors. It also has an obligation to provide clear regulations on reimbursement of expenditures so that Canadians who want to use surrogates and donor sperm and eggs can do so without running afoul of the law. </p>
<p>The governance of assisted human reproduction is too important to the future of Canadian families to be undermined by a private member’s bill calling for an open market in human reproduction.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/94197/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Françoise Baylis has received research funding from CIHR and the Canada Research Chairs program</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alana Cattapan has received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Saskatchewan Health Research Foundation. She is on the Board of the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women. </span></em></p>There are sound ethical reasons behind Canada’s decision to ban payment to surrogate mothers and sperm and egg donors in 2004. A new push to remove the restrictions ignores the risks.Françoise Baylis, Professor and Canada Research Chair in Bioethics and Philosophy, Dalhousie UniversityAlana Cattapan, Assistant Professor, Johnson Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, University of SaskatchewanLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/863712017-11-02T23:38:41Z2017-11-02T23:38:41ZIt’s mostly mothers who pass on mitochondria – and a new theory says it’s due to the first sexual conflict<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/193092/original/file-20171102-26478-lwqk5w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Is this how we got the sperm and the egg?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/sperm-egg-1762515">Sebastian Kaulitzki/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Evolutionary interests of males and females do not always coincide. This is known as sexual conflict: male innovations that allow them to reproduce more sometimes hurt females, and vice versa.</p>
<p>Male fruit flies, for instance, inject their partners with <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/24/science/sex-and-the-fruit-fly-price-of-promiscuity-is-premature-death.html">toxic chemicals</a> during sex. These toxins destroy sperm of the female’s previous mates, improving his own chances for becoming the sole father of her offspring. But the toxins also make female flies sick and reduce their lifespan. Females, in turn, have evolved defenses to counter the chemicals, sometimes at the expense of males’ success. </p>
<p>Biologists believe that sexual conflicts are rooted in the <a href="http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/abstract/S0169-5347(02)00004-6">size and number of reproductive cells</a> – eggs and sperm. Males typically produce large numbers of sperm that can fertilize multiple eggs. Females, on the other hand, produce a small number of large reproductive cells, and so invest more energy and resources in each. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.ucl.ac.uk/%7Eucbhpom/people.html">My team</a> of evolutionary biologists at University College London <a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-017-0437-8">has now identified a different kind of sexual conflict</a>, dating back to the days when the most complex organisms were made of single cells, possibly as far as 1.5 billion years ago. This ancient sexual conflict – before the two sexes even existed – had to do with whose mitochondria would be passed on to offspring.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192858/original/file-20171101-19894-1jdkw1c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192858/original/file-20171101-19894-1jdkw1c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192858/original/file-20171101-19894-1jdkw1c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=544&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192858/original/file-20171101-19894-1jdkw1c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=544&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192858/original/file-20171101-19894-1jdkw1c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=544&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192858/original/file-20171101-19894-1jdkw1c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=684&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192858/original/file-20171101-19894-1jdkw1c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=684&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192858/original/file-20171101-19894-1jdkw1c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=684&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Eukaryotic cells have a nucleus (blue) and numerous mitochondria (green).</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/nihgov/20495441928">Dylan Burnette and Jennifer Lippincott-Schwartz, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Whose mitochondria will be passed on?</h2>
<p>We studied inheritance of genes located in <a href="https://www.livescience.com/50679-mitochondria.html">mitochondria</a> – the structures inside our cells that breathe and produce energy. In many animals and plants, when the egg is fertilized, only the mother’s mitochondrial genes survive, while the father’s mitochondria are lost.</p>
<p>This is not by accident: Females have evolved many mechanisms to recognize a partner’s mitochondria entering the egg. Once detected, an army of enzymes is sent to digest them. Previous research has shown that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.1920">getting rid of male mitochondria</a> is a way to keep descendents’ mitochondrial genes mutation-free. In the long run, inheritance of healthy maternal mitochondria is good news for the offspring.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192864/original/file-20171101-19845-1rugssj.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192864/original/file-20171101-19845-1rugssj.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192864/original/file-20171101-19845-1rugssj.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=511&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192864/original/file-20171101-19845-1rugssj.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=511&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192864/original/file-20171101-19845-1rugssj.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=511&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192864/original/file-20171101-19845-1rugssj.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=642&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192864/original/file-20171101-19845-1rugssj.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=642&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192864/original/file-20171101-19845-1rugssj.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=642&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">For the most part mitochondria come from the mother’s line. But there are exceptions.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mitochondrial_DNA_versus_Nuclear_DNA.gif">University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But there are many exceptions that remain unexplained. In some species, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.2012.60">paternal mitochondria remain undigested</a>, as if the father had found a way to protect them from being detected. Stranger still, in organisms such as fruit flies and many plants, it is the father that destroys most of his own mitochondria during production of sperm.</p>
<p>If maternal inheritance is as beneficial as previous research shows, why are there so many exceptions?</p>
<h2>Taking the long or the short view</h2>
<p>In our new study, we show that these exceptions arise because of a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-017-0437-8">sexual conflict over the control of mitochondrial inheritance</a>.</p>
<p>Using mathematical modeling, we found that evolution in females tends to focus on long-term effects. Destroying paternal mitochondria makes it easier to weed out harmful mutations in the future, but this effect unfolds over many generations. This strategy works well in females, because the same healthy set of maternal mitochondria is passed down the female line over and over again. </p>
<p>But males don’t have a long evolutionary time horizon to deal with in this case. Since most of their mitochondria are replaced by maternal ones at the start of every generation, evolution cannot detect long-term benefits from males’ mitochondrial genes. Because there’s no long-term link, they can benefit only in the immediate future, and that often means passing on some of their mitochondria right now. Males therefore seek to improve the fitness of their offspring in the short-term, even if the long-term effects are harmful.</p>
<p>It’s these different interests of males and females that can lead to an evolutionary arms race, as selection in the two sexes acts in opposite directions. Evolution in females strives to keep the future generations free of male mitochondria, while males make every effort to get some of theirs into the mix.</p>
<p>“Over and over again, males have come up with ways to subvert female destruction of their mitochondria,” said my co-author, geneticist <a href="http://www.ucl.ac.uk/%7Eucbhpom/">Andrew Pomiankowski</a>. “So females had to develop new ways to block male mitochondria. Our model explains nicely why there are so many different mechanisms used to exclude male mitochondria, and why males sometimes do it themselves.”</p>
<p>It’s all about the control of mitochondrial inheritance – and for males it’s better to be in the driver’s seat to decide how many mitochondria they contribute to the mix than be completely excluded.</p>
<h2>A sexual conflict that led to the sexes</h2>
<p>There is evidence that this conflict dates back to the days when all organisms were made of single cells. Male and female sexes did not exist, because all reproductive cells were of the same size. </p>
<p>“One of the strategies an organism can use to win in this conflict is to simply have more mitochondria than their partner, for example, by increasing the size of their sex cells,” Andrew Pomiankowski said. “Strikingly, this might have been the impetus to evolve two sexes in the first place.” Larger sex cells – the future eggs – garnered an advantage in the battle over mitochondrial inheritance, simply by swamping smaller sex cells – the forerunners of sperm – that had fewer mitochondria to contribute.</p>
<p>Most biologists currently think that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2002.2161">two sexes evolved through division of labor</a> – a so-called “disruptive selection” theory. Large female sex cells can survive longer but cannot move much, while smaller sperm are fragile but move faster and can find more mating partners.</p>
<p>Our hypothesis on the origin of sexes, if true, adds a new angle to this origins story, tracing it back to an ancient conflict over mitochondrial inheritance. Females may have won this ancient battle by simply producing larger sex cells packed with mitochondria, ensuring that mitochondrial transmission is effectively one-sided (and reaping the long-term fitness benefits). But ultimately, as with all scientific hypotheses, this one will have to stand the test of thorough experimental verification.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/86371/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Arunas L Radzvilavicius receives funding from David and Lucille Packard Foundation.</span></em></p>An ancient sexual conflict over mitochondrial inheritance may be responsible for the evolution of the two sexes as we know them.Arunas L. Radzvilavicius, Postdoctoral Researcher of Evolutionary Biology, University of PennsylvaniaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/846642017-09-27T23:30:49Z2017-09-27T23:30:49ZEgg donors and surrogates need high-quality care<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/187876/original/file-20170927-24212-1vu4go3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Egg donors, sperm donors and surrogates are critical participants and patients in the use of reproductive technologies - so why are their rights and heath repeatedly overlooked?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Health Canada recently sought public input into new regulations for the use of assisted human reproduction. The consultation process covered everything from in-vitro fertilization (IVF) to egg and sperm donation and surrogacy.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/programs/consultation-assisted-human-reproduction/document.html#a1">The consultation document</a> prioritizes the health and safety of men and women engaged in <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/family-making-9780199656066?cc=gb&lang=en&">family-making</a> projects using assisted human reproduction. It also prioritizes the health and safety of children born of reproductive technologies. Meanwhile, the interests of those who contribute substantially to family-making — egg donors, sperm donors and surrogates — are repeatedly overlooked.</p>
<p>As researchers and advocates for women’s health, we are concerned about the ongoing failure on the part of Health Canada and others to see egg donors, sperm donors and surrogates as both critical participants and patients in the use of reproductive technologies. We urge policy makers to give due consideration to their health, well-being and interests in the making of public policy on assisted human reproduction.</p>
<h2>A narrow focus</h2>
<p><a href="http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/a-13.4/FullText.html">The Assisted Human Reproduction (AHR) Act </a> — the legislation governing the use of human reproductive technologies in Canada — was passed in 2004. As originally drafted, the act includes a number of provisions that require regulations in order for them to come into force. Most of these have never been introduced, including rules about how those donating eggs, sperm and embryos and those who act as surrogates should be paid.</p>
<p>Now, some 13 years later, Health Canada is finally taking the necessary steps to start drafting the missing regulations. An early step in this process has involved limited public consultation on a discussion document titled <em>Toward a Strengthened Assisted Human Reproduction Act: A Consultation with Canadians on Key Policy Proposals</em>. This document provides information about the direction of regulations-to-come in support of the AHR Act and asks the public for input.</p>
<p>An important problem with the discussion document (and the direction of the regulations it outlines) is the narrow focus on those who use assisted reproduction to build a family and those who are born of these technologies. </p>
<p>What about those who assist others with their family-making project? Assisted human reproduction often involves others — including egg donors, sperm donors and surrogates. In the discussion document, their interests are too often overlooked.</p>
<h2>Risks of egg donation</h2>
<p>In the section on “product safety,” for example, the discussion document provides considerable detail about the ways in which eggs and sperm (gametes) should be acquired so as to protect the health and safety of those using assisted reproduction, and of the children born. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/187458/original/file-20170925-22354-19psdkx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/187458/original/file-20170925-22354-19psdkx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/187458/original/file-20170925-22354-19psdkx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/187458/original/file-20170925-22354-19psdkx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/187458/original/file-20170925-22354-19psdkx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/187458/original/file-20170925-22354-19psdkx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/187458/original/file-20170925-22354-19psdkx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Gamete donors and surogates are repeatedly viewed as mere ‘third parties’ in laws governing assisted reproduction in Canada and globally.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Unsplash/Sean Roy)</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But what about the health and safety of the gamete providers and the surrogates? The risks associated with egg production, for example, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18681998">are substantial</a>. And there are <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19022427">numerous reports</a> that <a href="http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2016/03/07/medethics-2015-102964">informed consent is lacking</a>, as is <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2198380237">adequate follow-up care</a> to address potential health risks such as ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. </p>
<p>Nowhere does the government discussion document address the health and safety of the women from whom the so-called “products” are obtained.</p>
<h2>‘Third parties’ or vital contributors?</h2>
<p>In another section of the discussion document on the “risk of transmission of disease,” the focus is again narrowly on the would-be-parents and the children conceived. Accordingly, when reproductive material is tested and screened, the would-be parents are to be informed of the tests results so that they can take this information into consideration in making their reproductive choices. </p>
<p>There is no mention, however, of disclosing information about genetic or infectious disease to gamete donors and surrogates. Yet, surely they have an even greater claim on such information that they require to make both health-care and reproductive choices.</p>
<p>This lack of attention to the interests of gamete donors and surrogates has been a problem with the regulation of assisted reproduction in Canada from the beginning. These participants in assisted human reproduction are rarely included in policy consultations and their experiences are rarely studied. </p>
<p>They are typically referred to as “third-parties” in the reproductive process when they are, in fact, primary actors. In these ways they are thought of, and often treated, as nearly extraneous to the family-making projects they enable.</p>
<h2>Women as ‘spare parts’ and ‘walking wombs’</h2>
<p>Scholars in the field of assisted human reproduction (including us), have documented the many ways in which egg donors have come to be thought of as “<a href="http://www.utpjournals.press/doi/abs/10.3138/cjwl.25.2.249">spare parts</a>” rather than patients, and surrogates have long been dismissively thought of as “<a href="http://ca.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0745602096.html">walking wombs</a>.”</p>
<p>This Health Canada consultation fails to see gamete donors and surrogates as participants in assisted reproduction, fully deserving of the same high-quality care as those who use the technologies to build their families. This is indicative of a broad and ongoing failure to take seriously the rights and interests of gamete donors and surrogates. </p>
<p>As Health Canada moves forward with this regulatory process, it is critical that all who participate in assisted human reproduction come to be understood as key actors in the use of reproductive technologies.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/84664/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alana Cattapan has received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. She is on the Board of the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Françoise Baylis has received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Stem Cell Network. She wrote the expert ethics report for the Canadian government in the Reference regarding the Assisted Human Reproduction Act S.C. 2004, c.2. She was a member of the inaugural Board of Directors of Assisted Human Reproduction Canada (2006-2010).</span></em></p>Health Canada is drafting important regulations for assisted reproductive technologies. Initial documents treat egg donors and surrogates as little more than spare parts and walking wombs.Alana Cattapan, Assistant Professor, Johnson Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, University of SaskatchewanFrançoise Baylis, Professor and Canada Research Chair in Bioethics and Philosophy, Dalhousie UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.