“cells from a man could be turned into egg cells and cells from a woman could be turned into sperm cells. And that would be an even bigger leap in reproductive medicine than in-vitro fertilization. It would alter our concept of family in ways we are only beginning to imagine.”

My first reaction is “Eeew!”

I’m not convinced that IVF has done the human race any favours, but the concept of IVG (in-vitro gametogenesis) sounds like a monstrous extension of an already dangerous technology. Evolution requires that the survival of the fittest not be suppressed by science. In heterosexual procreation it is the strongest, healthiest sperm that gets to fertilise the egg, making it statistically likely that the breed improves with each generation. Swilling long-frozen then re-thawed ova and sperm in a test tube makes it likely that the offspring from this unnatural union will be weaker than the baby created by the old-fashioned sexual reproduction that has been all the race has needed for the last 100,000 years. There is a massive risk to the viability of the species in this technology: if we go down this route, in a few generations this could be the only viable reproductive method. Where is the long-term risk analysis?

Why would we want to “alter our concept of family in ways we are only beginning to imagine”??? While we are at it, what is wrong with “hetero-normative values”???

If I’ve ever seen a line of research that should be suppressed, IVG is it: where is the ethical oversight of genetic research? Just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should do it. Take a step back from the Abyss.

I work in IT, Community volunteer interested in Politics, support Capitalism as the best economic system for lifting people out of poverty, Skeptical scientist.

I work in IT, Community volunteer interested in Politics, support Capitalism as the best economic system for lifting people out of poverty, Skeptical scientist.