Human embryos made from human skin cells

[HeyThereDelila]

AIBU to think we’re sleep walking in to dystopia?

Scientists in the US have created the first embryos using human skin and sperm, raising concerns that babies could be born who ultimately don’t have a genetic female parent.

While this technology looks to be a decade away from being viable, here our fertility regulator (HFEA) met to discuss it in January 2025: they think it’ll be here soon.

Reproductive technology seems to be heading to a very concerning place, with all the emphasis on people who want children, come what may, and none of the emphasis on children’s rights or needs.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g2vyee0zlo

I saw this and it made me feel sick. Just because we can doesn't mean we should.

Agree. Whose interests are served by this? Scientists who are chasing the next lucrative money spinner and adults who want to ride roughshod over children’s rights.

Are these embryos viable? I think not but at what point could this be the case? Is it possible that one of these embryos could be gestated and birthed by a surrogate?

Thank god someone said it!

i watched it on the 10 o’clock news and it made
me so uncomfortable. Two men could both be genetically related? Weird.

Completely unethical.

Whilst the embryo being genetically related to two males doesn’t shock me (isn’t that already possible for women?), the rest of the issues this brings up are deeply disturbing.

All the usual issues around surrogacy apply, and now we can use the skin of people who are otherwise too old to have children! Yay! Who’s going to raise that kid to adulthood when their parents die. As PP said, it’s all about the wannabe parents, not the kids.

But it’s hard to see how this won’t happen at some point, very hard to put ethical safeguards on things, there will always be someone who pushes it. And the testing that’s going to be going on until they produce these viable embryos is rather stomach churning when you think about it.

I think they only found out by accident that you could fertilise an egg with an egg. So they weren't trying to make it possible for two women to genetically create a child. And my understanding was they deliberately stopped the research at that point (obvs they kept trying to cure mitochondrial disorders) because it would be unethical. We don't know if the egg fertilised egg would grow into a baby because they made the conscious decision not to pursue that research. Rightly.

There is always space for ethics in science. Most established science and medical procedures have ethical guard rails around them. The reason there aren't any guard rails on this at the moment is because the people pushing it don't want there to be ethical guardrails.

I wasn't getting at you @PrimSec
More the super upbeat "isn't it great that one day we might be able to do this..." Tone of the article. Urgh.

I wasn't getting at you @PrimSec
More the super upbeat "isn't it great that one day we might be able to do this..." Tone of the article. Urgh.

It does seem to lead to dystopia. Especially in a world where Trump has made women seem disposable and only good for being trad wives... He won't need us soon. Funny his scientists can come up with this while rubbishing pain relief for pregnant women.

@burningorb our fertility regulator, the HFEA, think the technology will be viable within the decade. This article has more. It is chilling.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2025/jan/26/lab-grown-eggs-sperm-viability-uk-fertility-watchdog

They can’t gestate the baby in a box though. To misquote Monty Python.

An unlimited number of embryos being created to be experimented on would obviously be the biggest ethical concern, followed by pushes to normalise surrogacy (both emotionally blackmailing women into "altruistic" surrogacy for relatives/ family friends, and paid surrogacy advocates claiming "reproductive work is work" and trying to claim paid pregnancy and birthing is the same as working in tescos and an option unemployed women should be instructed to consider, as well as the normalising of exploiting women in low income countries to an ever increasing extent...). It's common knowledge that surrogate pregnancy is much higher risk to both mother and baby than pregnancy with the woman's own eggs.

There's also the danger mentioned in the article of babies with recessive genetic syndromes being created from only one set of genetic material, and the designer baby being "returned" because the individual paid for a healthy baby and doesn't want their disabled one.

The one advantage for women is an end to women being paid for egg donation and the dangers of ovarian hyper stimulation syndrome (also a risk in IVF to create her own pregnancy) etc.

This is hardly new. It has been done with mice, cows and goats over 10 years ago (I was working with the three as a scientist). Humans are not that different, there are simply more control and rules about being able to use human cells.

I'm glad I'll be dead before these fucking freaks grow up. And freaks they will be.

People used to think exactly the same about IVF babies. In fact, when the first "test tube baby" Louise Brown was born, there were demonstrations of thousands of angry people outside the hospital calling her "a vessel with no soul" and asking for her death. You'd feel right at home with them.

Nope. Completely and irrevocably different. As you are well, well aware.

I have worked with the technique and generated animal embryos myself with it, which went to develop into healthy adults, many times, so I can assure you I am well aware that babies conceived this way would be completely indistinguishable from babies conceived "naturally".

We used to have a facility where we invited members of the public to come to see the cloned animals. They invariably left disappointed. They were completely normal cows and goats living their normal cow and goat lives. They didn't glow in the dark, have two heads or talked back to them.

But by the words you write, you have already convinced yourself of the opposite, so it's a bit useless for me to explain this, even from my point of view as a user of that specific technology you're talking about. I just hope that, when this technology becomes mainstream just like IVF already is now (and you are utterly unable to tell which babies are IVF and which are not unless you're told), you won't be one of the weirdoes holding banners asking for these children to be hanged in the town's main square.

The focus is always on the parents and what they want, never on the children and their rights. I do feel we are heading for the world depicted in Oryx and Crake - corporate controlled and entirely focused on self-interest and personal gratification. It is disgusting.

i don’t think it’s coincidence that this effectively hints at there being no biological need for women rather than men. The ethical decision to halt this research should have been the same as when it was realised we don’t need men to reproduce. I wonder why this is seen as more “desirable”… As per PP, “chilling”.

The one advantage for women is an end to women being paid for egg donation and the dangers of ovarian hyper stimulation syndrome (also a risk in IVF to create her own pregnancy) etc.

The process still requires an egg. It's stripped of its genetic material which is replaced with genetic material from the skin cell.

Still need an egg with no genetic material to put the DNA from skin in, cant get rid of us pesky women that easily!

Don't like the age angle. But it's fascinating science and no child would ever be a "freak"

Having watched Handmaids Tale and heard about Adriana Smith this year in US...

I think it's an Midwich Cuckoos feeling I'm getting

The process still requires an egg
Exactly! Another case of people jumping to the most drama fuelled conclusions without even reading the article properly. It still requires an egg.