Science is f*cking rad.
Scientists Create Fully Functional Eggs from Skin Cells
Using skin cells extracted from mice, researchers in Japan have produced fully functional egg cells that were used to produce healthy mouse pups. Should the method work in humans, it could introduce powerful new ways of treating infertility—and even allow same-sex couples to produce biological offspring.
Although I have friends who routinely create muscle cells, bone and neurons out of stem cells, a viable egg is a major and possibly the holy grail of stem cell science. No we cannot have this tomorrow, although I would wager whichever private firm buys the license will work night and day to get approval for human tests.
However before getting too excited I want to throw out the usual caveat about medical breakthroughs and mice. It turns out that rodents make really, really great patients. We have can cure or treat almost anything in mice – diabetes, neurodegenerative diseases, most cancers etc etc. Your pet mouse could almost literally live forever as long as you have enough money and a suitably equipped veterinary center / world class research institute nearby. Unfortunately we’re not mice. Human trials have too often been the cruel rocks against which promising medical breakthroughs get dashed. You could explain away some of that by pointing out that animal studies have a relatively low bar to meet. Human trials get intense oversight that makes it much harder to pull off the kind of sloppiness or flawed experimental design that you see in papers that don’t hold up when someone tries to repeat it later. But there is also a real biological difference between most mammals and us. The Korean guy who cloned dogs and sheep got himself in so much trouble precisely because he assumed that the techniques for cloning other large mammals would work in humans. He filled in a bunch of results based on what he expected to get and then published the filler data as if it was real, like giving a Powerpoint talk with that nonsense Latin filler still in every slide. To his dismay none of that stuff he learned from sheep and dogs did him any good. Another team finally reported success in 2007, two years after the UN banned growing any cloned humans to term.
With that in mind I would say that egg cells on demand is still far from guaranteed, and even if it does happen FDA approval will be a long time coming. But the odds of people alive today having a simple alternative to infertility just got a whole lot better.
rikyrah
this stuff scares me
slag
Oh great. Now women are going to have to wear burkas in order to avoid an inadvertent abortive sunburn.
Warren Terra
I like and support the science, which is fundamentally increasing our knowledge in ways we can’t predict but will extend far beyond issues of infertility – but I bridle at the idea that we need ludicrously expensive experimental “alternatives to infertility” when egg donation, surrogacy, and adoption already exist. And there are already enormous ethical issues with egg donation and especially surrogacy, that this technique would only compound!
oldster
On the plus side, at least my brother can stop believing he’s a chicken, now that we no longer need the eggs.
Or maybe this shows that he was right all along?
Immanentize
@oldster: Thank you, Woody.
Pest Bog Mummy, Frakensteinbeck
My thought went to stem cells as well. If this can be transferred to humans, it opens the door to people providing their own stem cells for every type of treatment, which in turn… gets a bit crazy!
RSA
Christian theologians will not be happy.
Lyrebird
@Warren Terra: Undoubtedly this technique, if it ends up working for humans, could increase some of the problems you’re referring to, but as far as egg donation goes, doing this instead would take out some of the power dynamic of older couples paying younger women scads of money for reproductive tissue.
I don’t have any answers, I just know that every parenting avenue (including adoption) has its detractors.
Tim F.
@Lyrebird: I don’t know that older couples will necessarily be the best candidates. Skin cells get older. In fact they get exposed to more problematic chemicals and UV radiation than the rest of the body. An egg reverse-engineered from older skin would have a pretty high chance of random genetic problems.
Anoniminous
I’d like to see experimental replication in other labs before getting excited.
EBT
Another tiny step for science!
Mickee
Very interesting. I’ll wait for more evidence. Japan also brought us the STAP debacle. Lots of breathless press over something that turned out to be fraud. If this is real, it’s an important advance in stem cell science, but I agree with Anoniminous (@10) at the very least, it needs to be replicated by other labs before we all start rejoicing.
Bill E Pilgrim
Great, now Donald Trump can create a whole new gaggle of bright orange offspring.
chopper
yay, more people!
scav
It’s a plot by those wimminz and crooked Hillary to steal still more future elections from future Trumps as menz won’t be needed anymore. Women were only pretending to be afraid of mice in all those movies, they were actually huddling in cabals plotting overthrow of all that makes ‘Merca great.
Doug R
If there’s one thing the epigenetics course I took online taught me, it’s that there are so many genetic switches and chemical pathways replicating cells take, it has not been possible yet to get it to all work the way we want.
That’s why Dolly the cloned sheep died so young, her cells “thought” she was old.
Prescott Cactus
Egg McMuffins that cook themselves.
Roger Moore
@Tim F.:
Sure, but is there a reason to think this couldn’t be done with some other tissue? Skin is nice because it’s easy to get, but you could always target a different tissue. The ideal choice would be something that grows slowly so you don’t have to worry about there having been as many cell divisions over the person’s lifespan potentially introducing mutations.
Brachiator
@Warren Terra:
There are a couple of fallacies at play here. The first is the assertion that the state of science at some arbitrary point (current knowledge that is OK by you) is where we should stop. But I’m sure that someone once suggested that we stop at artificial insemination without egg donation, or that we stop at adoption. This is more about personal comfort zones than it is about “going too far.”
The “ludicrously expensive experimental alternatives” is weak as well. Why should you object if there are sufficient numbers of people who can afford these procedures, and if they are safe and produce healthy kids? And of course, some procedures get less expensive when breakthroughs are achieved. From an August 24 news story:
What might be ludicrously expensive today might become cheap and commonplace tomorrow.
True enough. The recent procedure involving a child produced using genetic material from three individuals might break some religious or other ethical system taboos, but we usually find a way to hash these issues out in a way that is acceptable to the majority of people.
Joel
Lab mice are also genetically homogenous and don’t have any outlet to report pain and suffering from failed experiments. The potentially catastrophic risk (in terms of human misery) for de-differentiated offspring is almost too much to imagine. We are a long ways yet…
What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us?
I heard last week they also used a robotic arm to give a guy with a spinal cord injury sensation in his hand. Not perfect sensation, but he could feel electrical stimulation and sense how firmly he was gripping objects.
Joel
@srv: Sirtuins? Nah.
Calouste
@srv: Considering your presence here, reservatroll seems to be far from a bust.
Redshift
@Doug R:
That was widely reported at the time, but the reality is quite different:
Dolly the sheep’s cloned sisters enjoy good health despite their old age
Redshift
@Calouste: Reverse-a-troll, however…
Pogonip
What could it hurt?
Check back in 50 years for the “But how could we have known?”
Tread carefully, scientists.
With the robotic-arm guy, there appears, as yet, to be no downside. I was pleased for him.
Cain
@chopper:
Goddam, that’s what this planet needs more ways to conceive more humans. Perhaps they could use it to bring back some of the species that were killed off because we were assholes?
Color me not excited and also believe it is a dangerous direction to go to. While Im happy for same sex couples to be able to conceive and what not, (and also the salty tears of right wing christian demagogues) I am over all think our problem is too many people. We could reduce so many problems. More than that, I fear that this process could also be able to choose the sex of the child as well.
gvg
@Cain: if there is a known sex linked genetic problem in your family, choosing the sex would be a good thing and should be allowed.
People want to adopt babies who aren’t messed up yet. By that, I mean the kind of people who have children removed, tend to damage their children before it’s known they shouldn’t have kids. For instance shaken babies can have brain behavior problems that are serious but don’t show up till adolescence. My sister adopted through foster care and I will be trying too. We have talked to quite a few others specifically trying to adopt and motivation is not usually just infertility. Sometimes it’s more than you can handle, like adopting a child with expensive medical issues or who won’t live a full lifetime for sure. Early starvation causes brain damage by the way (looking at you granny starving republicans). Sometimes the only hope is more medical advances in multiple areas….and not allowing funding shortages for investigations, foster care, medical care.
I don’t think adoption nor fertility treatments are that statistically significant.
Brachiator
@Cain:
We do this already, but not as comprehensively as we might in the future.
As for the idea of prohibiting or restricting infertility treatment on the grounds of overpopulation? Well, good luck with that.
RSA
@shomi:
Me, I like it when Ph.D. researchers show excitement in sharing results from a field they’re familiar with.
Mnemosyne
@gvg:
Some of my cousins by marriage were able to do an open adoption and are preparing to adopt a second child, but they’re pretty much the Holy Grail for adoption agencies: an interracial married couple who are financially stable. Even completely healthy, unabused interracial babies can be difficult to place, so they are very popular.
maryQ
Please tell me why we are doing this?
And, since I am a developmental biologist with a PhD in Biology, a history of winning NIH and NSF grants, won a teaching award for a developmental biology class I created at an elite university, and now direct a graduate program in biomedical science, you can use big words. I get the basic reattach aspect-this is very interesting and tells us something (though we already know A LOT) about potency.
But I need to know why we would even consider “fixing” the problems so we can do this in humans.
quakerinabasement
Hm. Wouldn’t this give malevolent actors the ability to create offspring from the cells of unwitting targets?
petesh
@Brachiator:
Even aside from ethical and scientific issues (neither of which are trivial), a scandal about that birth is that the scientist involved deliberately did it in Mexico in order to circumvent the hashing out in the US that is actually happening. Congress has not been helping, but the process of evaluation is in fact under way. The UK thinks it may be (close to) ready for clinical trials but has not yet authorized any proposals; in the US, the FDA took the view that the process was not ready, but made it clear that they might reconsider.
As a consequence of this recklessness (about which we should know more this week; he’s scheduled to speak at a conference), there is only the doctor’s assertion that the baby is healthy, and as far as we know there are no provisions for follow-up as the child develops. The parents are from Jordan, which points out the great need for international cooperation on these issues. I could say more, and have.
Brachiator
@petesh: Yep. You said it.
What can be done has out run not only ethics, but regulation. This is a dilemma which, for now, has no real answer.
I’m not as much concerned about “designer babies” as I am about healthy babies. I note, though that I fully expect people to do stupid stuff with respect to designer babies (the hot trend in babies this year is oval faces and broad foreheads. This year future tennis stars is all the rage).
Do you discuss the other ethical ramifications on your site? For example, it is one thing to do genetic modification that “cures” a baby who has or may have some disease, abnormality, etc. But what are the rules of changes that may affect that child’s future offspring. I have heard one science watcher say that this is no big deal,since nature introduces mutations. But a parent may be removing or restricting a child’s future options by making changes that please the parent, but which the child might not want to see passed on to his or her offspring.
I’m not sure what forms the basis of current regulations? Health and safety? And you imply that even protocols for monitoring and evaluating the development of children born from these experiments is lacking. Makes for exciting times.
petesh
@Brachiator: The Center for Genetics and Society (CGS), with whom I consult (which includes writing but I cannot speak for them formally), is opposed to germline manipulation in part because of the problems you raise. The National Academies had a big meeting last December on the subject, which I attended, and are in the process of developing a Report which is taking them longer than originally expected. Do please poke around the CGS website. CGS has sort of become part of the “official opposition” in that they are widely respected as rational and well-informed, even by their opponents. I am trying to write a piece, perhaps for Alternet or somewhere, on how these issues are being ignored politically. Dead thread here, but maybe you’ll check in. Cheers!
Eolirin
@Brachiator: Well, we’re beginning to be able to make genetic changes to humans after they’ve been born and fully developed too, so depending on the trait in question the parents modifying a child’s genetic makeup might not mean so much, especially when it comes to their children.
mere mortal
“Unfortunately we’re not mice.”
Said no one, ever, except maybe in a Douglas Adams novel.