Advertisement

Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 339–345 | Cite as

Artificial gametes: perspectives of geneticists, ethicists and representatives of potential users

  • Daniela Cutas
  • Wybo Dondorp
  • Tsjalling Swierstra
  • Sjoerd Repping
  • Guido de Wert
Scientific Contribution

Abstract

Several threads of research towards developing artificial gametes are ongoing in a number of research labs worldwide. The development of a technology that could generate gametes in vitro has significant potential for human reproduction, and raises a lot of interest, as evidenced by the frequent and extensive media coverage of research in this area. We have asked researchers involved in work with artificial gametes, ethicists, and representatives of potential user groups, how they envisioned the use of artificial gametes in human reproduction. In the course of three focus groups, the participants commented on the various aspects involved. The two recurring themes were the strength of the claim of becoming a parent genetically, and the importance of responsible communication of science. The participants concurred that (a) the desire or need to have genetic offspring of one’s own does not warrant the investment of research resources into these technologies, and that (b) given the minefield in terms of moral controversy and sensitivity that characterises the issues involved, how information is communicated and handled is of great importance.

Keywords

Artificial gametes Assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) Genetic relatedness Infertility ICSI Communication of research 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are very grateful to all focus group participants for their participation. The work reported in this paper has been made possible by the project “Artificial gametes: science and ethics”, funded by the Centre for Society and the Life Sciences (CSG), Nijmegen, and the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw), The Hague.

References

  1. Bredenoord, A.L., G. Pennings, and G. de Wert. 2008. Ooplasmic and nuclear transfer to prevent mitochondrial DNA disorders: Conceptual and normative issues. Human Reproduction Update 14: 669–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cyranoski, D. 2013. Stem cells: Egg engineers. Nature. Google Scholar
  3. Deng, J.M., K. Satoh, H. Wang, H. Chang, Z. Zhang, M.D. Stewart, A.J. Cooney, and R.R. Behringer. 2011. Generation of viable male and female mice from two fathers. Biology of Reproduction 84: 613–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Geijsen, N., M. Horoschak, K. Kim, J. Gribnau, K. Eggan, and G.Q. Daley. 2004. Derivation of embryonic germ cells and male gametes from embryonic stem cells. Nature 427: 148–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hayashi, K., H. Ohta, K. Kurimoto, S. Aramaki, and M. Saitou. 2011. Reconstitution of the mouse germ cell specification pathway in culture by pluripotent stem cells. Cell 146: 519–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hayashi, K., S. Ogushi, K. Kurimoto, S. Shimamoto, M. Ohta, and M. Saitou. 2012. Offspring from oocytes derived from in vitro primordial cell-like cells in mice. Science 338: 971–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Heindrycks, B., P. De Sutter, J. Gerris, M. Dhont, and J. Van der Elst. 2007. Embryo development after successful somatic cell nuclear transfer to in vitro matured human germinal vesicle oocytes. Human Reproduction 22: 1982–1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Highfield, R. 2008. Sperm cells created from female embryo. The Telegraph. Google Scholar
  9. Hinxton Group. 2008. Consensus statement: Science, ethics and policy challenges of pluripotent stem cell-derived gametes. http://www.hinxtongroup.org/au_pscdg_cs.html. Accessed September 2013.
  10. Kerkis, I., C.M. Mendes, S.A.S. da Fonseca, N.F. Lizier, R.C. Serafim, and A. Kerkis. 2011. Actual achievements on germ cells and gametes derived from pluripotent stem cells. In Embryonic stem cells—recent advances in pluripotent stem cell-based regenerative medicine, ed. C. Atwood, 311–336. Rijeka: InTech.Google Scholar
  11. Lucivero, F., T. Swierstra, and M. Boenink. 2011. Assessing expectations: toward a toolbox for an ethics of emerging technologies. Nanoethics 5: 129–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2012. Novel techniques for the prevention of mitochondrial DNA disorders. London: Nuffield Council. http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/sites/default/files/Novel_techniques_for_the_prevention_of_mitochondrial_DNA_disorders_compressed.pdf. Accessed September 2013.
  13. Nayernia, K., J. Nolte, H.W. Michelmann, J.H. Lee, K. Rathsack, N. Drusenheimer, A. Dev, G. Wulf, I.E. Ehrmann, D.J. Elliott, V. Okpanyi, U. Xechner, T. Haaf, A. Minhardt, and W. Engel. 2006. In vitro-differentiated embryonic stem cells give rise to make gametes that can generate offspring mice. Developmental Cell 11: 125–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. West, J., I.-H. Park, G. Daley, and N. Geijsen. 2006. In vitro generation of germ cells from murine embryonic stem cells. Nature Protocols 1: 2026–2036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. White, W.A.R., D.C. Woods, Y. Takai, O. Ishihara, H. Seki, and J. Tilly. 2012. Oocyte formation by mitotically active germ cells purified from ovaries of reproductive-age women. Nature Medicine 18: 413–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniela Cutas
    • 1
    • 2
  • Wybo Dondorp
    • 1
  • Tsjalling Swierstra
    • 3
  • Sjoerd Repping
    • 4
  • Guido de Wert
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Health, Ethics and SocietyMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Historical, Philosophical and Religious StudiesUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden
  3. 3.Department of PhilosophyMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Centre for Reproductive MedicineUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations