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 don't know if I agree they will be human though. It's a bit like Theseus' Paradox in my mind.

They might be able to make it look human but just as a man made "vagina", it isn't the real natural thing. You can manufacture things to imitate but they are the imitation. Just as AI is an approximation of what a human might make.

When I said anyone I meant it within the context of fertile or infertile people because the comment preceding mine seemed to think I thought only infertile people should adopt.

No, I do not think paedophiles should adopt.

But if they have a brain like a human being they should definitely be classed as human. Otherwise they would be second class citizens. It's not their fault they exist by some backward means

But "like" a human and human is not the same.
AI has abilities similar to the human brain.

So what will this mean in terms of rights?

This is one of the reasons why I feel it's a hugely ethical issue. It is unclear if they are creating a sub-human race (for armies or organ donation) or an Aryan race (maybe genetically modified not to have disease, the higher IQ partner's DNA etc). If you take out the human flaws and create a super race, what does that mean for the rest of us? Will they be super in the way we expect or will they lack emotion because they've stripped that bit out?

Exactly.
We need to know how to classify them if they become viable.

That master race you speak of is what CRISPR gene editing was for. There was a TED talk about it. This one sounds more like it will produce degenerate people.

It would make sense if a woman isn't meant to nurture it - if men can just make them and put them to work or something, so it would maybe be a labouring race or for the army to have as an organ donor or something horrid.

It's a pretty nasty concept and I can't see what good will come from it.

You are so bloody ignorant and downright cruel

Is it just me missing the joke or he as this thread gone totally tin foil hat?

There are plenty of real, immediate ethical issues without inventing the idea that this is being deliberately persuaded to create a new race - and it f course if babies who can survive outside the womb are born with exclusively human genetic material they are human - how is that even up for debate?

The technique will be being developed because the company/ companies behind it expect to eventually make money from it, not for any more interestingly sinister reason (though profit as primary reason for creating human life is sinister enough obviously).

I used AI as I am about to go out and don't have the time to explain and write out in detail my thoughts but here they are probably far better explained than I would manage:

Q: How would embryos made of human skin cells be classed as human?

How an embryo made from human skin cells would be classified as human
depends on the definition applied—biological, legal, or ethical. Scientific advances in creating such entities from induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) have complicated traditional definitions that rely on fertilization.
Biological classification
From a biological standpoint, the classification depends on its potential and genetic makeup, not its origin.
Unique genetic identity: An embryo created from skin cells, through methods like somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), has a unique genetic composition. The transferred nucleus from a skin cell contains the full set of human chromosomes (46), which, when placed in a donor egg with its own nucleus removed, allows development to begin without fertilization.
Potential to develop: While some lab-created entities, often called "embryo models" or "blastoids," are not considered true embryos because they lack the full potential to develop into a fetus, a viable SCNT-derived embryo would be defined by this capacity. A legal definition proposed in 2023 defines an embryo as a group of human cells with the potential to form a fetus.
Embryoid versus embryo: A key biological distinction is often made between a true embryo (created via fertilization or with full developmental potential) and a stem cell-based embryo model (an "embryoid") which only mimics certain developmental stages.
Legal classification
The legal definition of a human embryo varies significantly between countries, creating complexity for this area of research.
Potentiality: Many modern legal frameworks have shifted away from defining an embryo strictly by fertilization and now focus on the capacity for development. The 2011 European Court of Justice ruling, for example, defined a human embryo to include any unfertilized ovum stimulated to develop and capable of becoming a human being.
Purpose of creation: Some legal definitions are based on the intent behind creating the embryo. Research guidelines, such as those from the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR), emphasize that the purpose of creating embryo models is research, not reproduction. Legal frameworks may prohibit transferring these constructs to a uterus.
International variance: In some regions, a product of nuclear transfer would not be classified as an embryo because it did not involve fertilization, as was the case with Spain's 2007 biomedical research law. This means an entity that is biologically human is not necessarily legally classified as such in all jurisdictions.
Ethical considerations and moral status
Ethical debates center on when a human entity, regardless of its origin, gains moral status and personhood.
Genetic humanness vs. personhood: While an embryo made from skin cells is genetically human from the start, whether it qualifies for personhood or a specific moral status is a key ethical question. Different philosophical and theological positions place the start of personhood at various developmental milestones, from fertilization to later stages of development.
Creation method: Some ethicists find the creation method morally relevant. They argue that creating an embryo without fertilization could be seen as violating human dignity, though this is a subject of ongoing debate.
The "14-day rule": For many years, the widely accepted "14-day rule" prohibited the culture of human embryos past the point when the primitive streak forms. This milestone was once seen as a significant transition in development. The creation of stem cell-based embryo models that mimic this stage has prompted re-evaluation of this guideline by organizations like the ISSCR.

Completely agree.

You don't understand how biology works.

I do understand how biology works. You just seem to be very unkind and most likely just trying to hurt people.

You're misrepresenting what this other poster said and trying to spin it because you disagree with their opinion.

Are you emotionally invested in the topic because you personally have used a donor egg?

No I haven’t actually. You are just incredibly cruel. I take it you have never had the unfortunate experience of suffering from infertility? What kind of person tells another that they are not their child’s mother?!

No I’m not. The PP is basically saying that if you can’t afford ivf then you can’t afford children, which is absolute bullshit!

Very sadly, infertility is just another human condition. Feeling IVF or cloning is wrong doesn’t make someone cruel.

telling someone that their child isn’t theirs is downright cruel. I take it you are an other one who hasn’t suffered with infertility.

I tried to conceive for 7 years in one relationship, so yes I have experienced infertility.

That's not quite what I said word for word though is it? And you've omitted the context of the discussion.

Cruel is creating an adopted baby with no biological link (who will never know their real parents) for your own gratification.

Yes and no. 9 year gap. We were offered something called Ixy, Ixxi? back in the 1990s. We considered but decided no.

You are correct. People have historically shot the messenger. The truth is not always pleasant to hear, that does not however mean we should stop saying what is true.

ICSI