Author
|
Topic: Artificial Wombs: A vision of controversy? (Read 2157 times) |
|
Fox
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 122
Reputation: 8.12
Rate Fox
Never underestimate the odds.
|
 |
Artificial Wombs: A vision of controversy?
« on: 2006-06-22 16:18:56 » |
 |
Lately I have been researching and reading quite abit about the ("ostensibly") futuristic possibility of Artificial Gestation.
A good link on this is: Artificial Womb
From what I gather, cutting-edge research in the U.S. and Japan will soon launch a new era in human procreation: a world in which embryos can be “brought to term” in artificial wombs, eliminating traditional pregnancies.Cornell University’s Dr. Hung Chiung Liu has engineered endometrial tissues by prompting cells to grow in an artificial uterus.
When Liu introduced a mouse embryo into the lab-created uterine lining, “It successfully implanted and grew healthy”, she said in a New Atlantis magazine interview. Liu thinks her team could develop an animal womb in 5 years, and a human model within 10.In another experiment, Tokyo researcher Yosinori Kuwabara and colleagues kept goat fetuses growing for 10 days by connecting umbilical cords to machines that pump in blood, oxygen and nutrients, and dispose waste. While this womb is only a prototype, Kuwabara predicts that a fully functioning artificial womb capable of gestating a human fetus could evolve by 2010.
Experts believe artificial wombs will one day supplant natural ones - conception will become clinical; birth, bloodless. Gestation would be detached from motherhood, and the fetus would always be viable the instant sperm and egg fused.Artificial wombs are the kind of technological prospect ethicists love to ponder.
Philosopher Peter Singer claims “women will be helped, rather than harmed, by a technology that makes it possible to have children without being pregnant”. Feminist Shulamith Firestone agrees. “Once women break free from the tyranny of their reproductive biology, they could achieve full equality with men” - a statement which I found rather amusing.
Proponents believe artificial wombs will help women who have suffered miscarriages and hysterectomies; and couples who cannot conceive by themselves and do not wish to "hire" a surrogate, but still want their own baby.Concerns over losing emotional connection between mother and newborn are unwarranted. Researchers predict that computerized programming with parent emotions and personalities will simulate human care and feelings 24/7 to insure perfect development of children in artificial wombs.
However, some disagree, arguing that this science could lead to viewing children as “things”. In their views it seems the further we erode the mystery of how human life develops the more appealing it becomes to improve technology and demand greater control. In the near term, experts say, most women will probably gestate their children the old-fashioned way, but career-minded females may welcome a new concept that enables them to raise a family without enduring the pregnancy that often weakens their job status.
Ultimately, this technology could enable anyone; single, married, male, female, young, old, heterosexual or gay, to combine DNA from their own body with a selected third party, and voila; the gene pool marches on - and so no morning sickness or other negative side-effects.
In an unusual twist, this revolutionary science offers justification to pro-lifers in the abortion debates. Choosing an abortion to protect a mother’s health would no longer be necessary. Artificial wombs could bring all aborted embryos to term, thus saving countless lives. Some see the artificial womb as a triumph of modern science - others see it as the ultimate human folly. Only time will tell which of these views are correct, as we get ready to enjoy this awe-inspiring and incredible “magical future”.
We might compare artificial wombs to a more sophisticated version of today’s “incubator” systems that hospitals use to support premature babies.
Yet in light of all this some aspects of gestation and activity within the womb are as of yet not fully understood. A mother's body goes through radical hormonal changes, most of which (I think all, but I'm not sure) are experianced by the child. A fetus is able to hear it's mother's heartbeat, and hear (unclearly) it's mother's voice. We don't know how a lack or complete devoid of this would fully affect a fetus becaues every person has always had it.
One day, according to most forward-thinking futurists, all of humanity’s mysteries will become unraveled.
According to author and entrepreneur, Ray Kurzweil, “Computers will pass the Turing Test by 2029, and by 2040s our civilization will be billions of times more intelligent”.
It would appear something as miraculous as creating and “formatting” a new human will be fully understood in the future. Cornell researcher Dr. Hung Chiung Liu believes that by as early as 2015, scientists will be capable of providing computerized programming with emotions and personalities that would completely simulate human parents’ influence on their developing baby brought to term in an artificial womb.
Development of artificial wombs drives forward because of the promise it holds for saving lives. Many premature births do not survive long when placed in today’s (crude) incubator systems; think of all the embryos discarded from abortions that end up in death.
Artificial wombs would enable placing these unwanted embryos up for adoption; ergo more lives saved.This new technology will save lives - and should some utilize its convenience to escape time consuming pregnancies, most people would not see this as wrong.
Would you consider this a rational or irrational vision?
Would this be a reason with justification, or a reason without?
What are your views?
Fox
|
I've never expected a miracle. I will get things done myself. - Gatsu
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.81
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Artificial Wombs: A vision of controversy?
« Reply #1 on: 2006-06-22 19:20:03 » |
|
[White Fox] the fetus would always be viable the instant sperm and egg fused
[Hermit] A fetus only develops after the embryonic stage, which in humans only occurs at eight weeks. So this is hardly accurate. Leaving aside the issues which make this undesirable, as most human embryos are in fact not viable, this would not be true no matter how well developed the womb-substitute.
[White Fox] However, some disagree, arguing that this science could lead to viewing children as “things”.
[Hermit] Why is this relevant? Are children not "things"?
[White Fox] In their views it seems the further we erode the mystery of how human life develops the more appealing it becomes to improve technology and demand greater control.
[Hermit] Why is this perceived as a "bad thing" - if indeed this is the perception you are attempting to convey?
[White Fox] In the near term, experts say, most women will probably gestate their children the old-fashioned way,
[Hermit] This will probably prejudice the offspring of such breeders. A selected zygote, raised with excellent nutrition (which cannot be ensured in a human host) should do much better than those raised by "old-fashioned breeders." An additional issue is that "old fashioned breeders" are likely to comprise religious nut-cases and burners of steam-looms. So the prejudice may not be a bad thing from the perspective of human evolution.
[White Fox] but career-minded females may welcome a new concept that enables them to raise a family without enduring the pregnancy that often weakens their job status.
[Hermit] My experience and careful observation suggests that something related to pregnancy and birth (possibly related to the long term discomfort, short term pain or the associated hormonal seesaws) tends to screw up pregnant women's mental capabilities rather completely for at least a few years afterwards (and possibly permanently i.e. any perceived improvement may simply be my adaptation and acceptance of their new reduced mental competence rather than any real improvement on their part). This is an effect which is not much discussed and I'm sure is not sufficiently PC to receive research attention, but which I have seen too often (and I'm very cautious of anecdotal evidence) to discount.
[White Fox] Ultimately, this technology could enable anyone; single, married, male, female, young, old, heterosexual or gay, to combine DNA from their own body with a selected third party, and voila; the gene pool marches on - and so no morning sickness or other negative side-effects.
[Hermit] It also has the potential to deemotionalize, simplify and act as a major enabler of both partial (acephalic) and reproductive cloning.
[White Fox] Artificial wombs could bring all aborted embryos to term, thus saving countless lives.
[Hermit] This sentence is so wrong that it almost made me verbalize my annoyance. For starters, an embryo is not "a life". It is a potential life. So even if "all aborted embryos" could be brought "to term" it would not "save" a single life, never mind countless lives. Secondly, this appears to presume that "all aborted embryos" should be brought to term. In fact most abortions, which make up about 60% of all human pregnancies, happen because something is sufficiently wrong with the zygote for development to fail. Secondly, in most of the developed world, genetic screening is allowing us to terminate pregnancies with faulty zygotes. This has greatly decreased the number of monsters born (except in third world countries, even those with pretensions to 1st world status like the US, where this is not done). I would suggest that as we learn more about humans and genetics, that we should become much more selective, not less so. This suggests that the artificial wombs should also be able to eject the tissue contained in them into a blender at any time during development if an insoluble problem is detected, rather than engaging in heroic surgical or genetic interventions (which artificial wombs would also facilitate) on the grounds that zygotes are extremely cheap and there are far too many humans anyway.
[Hermit] An additional issue is that there are many defects which only become apparent during post natal development and while some of these may become apparent through genetic screening, others may not. The use of artificial wombs may facilitate the development of a rational outlook on the post natal termination of clearly non-viable humans.
[White Fox] Yet in light of all this some aspects of gestation and activity within the womb are as of yet not fully understood. A mother's body goes through radical hormonal changes, most of which (I think all, but I'm not sure) are experianced by the child.
[Hermit] AFAIK, all hormones, but not all molecules, are able to transfer across the placental barrier. Mo might know more about this.
[White Fox] A fetus is able to hear it's mother's heartbeat, and hear (unclearly) it's mother's voice. We don't know how a lack or complete devoid of this would fully affect a fetus becaues every person has always had it.
[Hermit] A zygote does not have the ability to hear until late in development, and the brain only develops appropriate receptive differentiators near full term. So infants raised from a sufficiently early point by a NICU after premature delivery do not experience this, and of course, neither do deaf infants. And the offspring of comatose or mute parents would not experience their mother's voices. So we know that aside from anthropomorphic emotionalism on the part of caregivers, that this is unimportant. Nonetheless, it would be trivial to synthesize it.
[White Fox] One day, according to most forward-thinking futurists, all of humanity’s mysteries will become unraveled.
[Hermit] This will happen soon. If we survive that long (doubtful). If we maintain an advanced civilization (extremely doubtful).
[White Fox] According to author and entrepreneur, Ray Kurzweil, “Computers will pass the Turing Test by 2029, and by 2040s our civilization will be billions of times more intelligent”.
[Hermit] Ray Kurzweil is probably correct about the Turing test. But if Moore's Law remains in effect (which requires society not be destroyed or collapse, far from a given) then I project that the first (and possibly the last) spirothete will almost certainly be a reality before 2010 and indubitably before 2020. And of course, a spirothete will make the Turing Test irrelevant. Interestingly Alan Turing was right on the money for memory capacity for 2000, which suggests to me that he had thoughts on AI which we are missing, as he also predicted that the Turing Test would be passed at around the 120 MB level. If society succeeds in surviving at all, it will need to have become more intelligent. However an historical perspective and particularly our poor relative performance in a comparison of ourselves with ancient Greek society leaves me unconvinced that humans will accept becoming more intelligent - and unintelligent humans will reject, probably violently, society becoming more intelligent. So I fear that Kurzweil is wrong, but I think that nobody is likely to be around to rub it in.
[White Fox] It would appear something as miraculous as creating and “formatting” a new human will be fully understood in the future.
[Hermit] Nothing "miraculous" about it. Unfortunately. Or population densities would be less of an issue. And yes, if we survive long enough, it seems likely we will completely comprehend human reproduction.
[White Fox] Cornell researcher Dr. Hung Chiung Liu believes that by as early as 2015, scientists will be capable of providing computerized programming with emotions and personalities that would completely simulate human parents’ influence on their developing baby brought to term in an artificial womb.
[Hermit] This is too conservative an estimate. Somebody should buy Dr. Hung Chiung Liu a Qrio and if Sony won't sell one, then even an Aibo can demonstrate how very superficial programming can already achieve the complex cuing needed to fool adults into projecting emotions. Zygotes, lacking most of a functioning brain, are presumably even easier to satisfy.
[White Fox] Development of artificial wombs drives forward because of the promise it holds for saving lives. Many premature births do not survive long when placed in today’s (crude) incubator systems; think of all the embryos discarded from abortions that end up in death.
[Hermit] An aborted embryo has never lived and therefore cannot "end up in death." In reality, embryos have behaved sufficiently humanly to cause distress in staff, so while we could probably raise an aborted embryo from the age of about 24 weeks to term (at huge expense) with minimal brain or optic damage, the product of late term-abortions are almost always carefully dismembered or the skull evacuated before delivery in order to avoid legal challenges of the embryonic status.
[White Fox] Artificial wombs would enable placing these unwanted embryos up for adoption; ergo more lives saved.
[Hermit] Aaaaaargh! There are too many people and babies already. "Adoption" is only an option when babies are scarce, in good condition and therefore valued. And as before, a zygote is not alive, so you can't save a life by preserving one from the blender.
[White Fox] This new technology will save lives - and should some utilize its convenience to escape time consuming pregnancies, most people would not see this as wrong.
[White Fox] Would you consider this a rational or irrational vision?
[Hermit] The equipment and its use is, should we survive that long, sensible, rational and inevitable. Which is why I am sure that the USA will try to ban its development and outlaw its deployment. If the "vision" is your idea that "This new technology will save lives" or "most people would not see this as wrong" then it is so irrational as to be quite insane.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.40
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
|
Re:Artificial Wombs: A vision of controversy?
« Reply #2 on: 2006-06-22 22:38:46 » |
|
Thanks for this. I have been waiting for such a technology. As most who have heard me rant in the chatroom already know, I have been suffering from the sound of the loud ticking of the biological clock. However, I do not find the trauma of pregnancy(physical, emotional and biochemical) worth the joy of peeing in the gene pool. I think there is a certain satisfaction in leaving behind pieces of one's own DNA code. It is the way to immortality, I feel.
I like the idea. Pity that it wont happen in my lifetime. I will be more than happy to freeze my eggs, however. Unfortunately, the viability of said eggs is rather questionable if they arent used up within five years. Starting now.
of course, i'd be more than happy to send a couple of my 'babies' to outerspace to colonise space. i am sure they can be tinkered with to adapt to non-earth environment.
So...like I said..interesting article and encouraging..
ETA: hey guys? how about a skeleton for a short story based on this?
|
|
|
|
|
Fox
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 122
Reputation: 8.12
Rate Fox
Never underestimate the odds.
|
|
Re:Artificial Wombs: A vision of controversy?
« Reply #3 on: 2006-06-23 17:03:37 » |
|
White Fox: the fetus would always be viable the instant sperm and egg fused
Hermit: A fetus only develops after the embryonic stage, which in humans only occurs at eight weeks. So this is hardly accurate. Leaving aside the issues which make this undesirable, as most human embryos are in fact not viable, this would not be true no matter how well developed the womb-substitute.
White Fox: Yes I understand this, but what I meant was (in theoretical possibility) that the development of a foeti would always be viably classed from the point of fertilization with this technological possibility ("Capable of living outside the uterus"). So if indeed the fetus stage was attained, with this technology the fetus would always be viable ("Capacity for survival") of reaching full-term and a live birth. To elucidate further, Donald Landry, Professor of Medicine at Columbia University and Director of the Division of Experimental Therapeutics, and his colleagues analyzed de-identified records of the observations of human embryos in culture retrospectively. The embryos had been generated by in vitro fertilization for the purpose of reproduction. Cell number and morphology were recorded on embryonic days 2, 3, 5, and 6. Viable embryos (n = 248) were compared to nonviable embryos (n = 444) and the latter were analyzed in subgroups defined by cell number and morphology. They found that many nonviable embryos (n = 142 out of 444) were hypocellular and lacked compaction on embryonic day 5 (ED5). All of the hypocellular embryos failed to progress to compacted morula or normal blastocyst when observed further. The research team conclude that arrested development at the multicellular stage on ED5 indicates an irreversible loss of integrated organic function, and hence, the condition of death. In fact, according to Opitz, embryologists estimate that the rate of natural loss for embryos that have developed for seven days or more is 60 percent. The total rate of natural loss of human embryos increases to at least 80 percent if one counts from the moment of conception. About half of the embryos lost are abnormal, but half are not, and quite viable, and had they implanted they would probably have developed into healthy foeti and babies. On another note however, the introduction of stress to embryonic blastomeres through inappropriate culture conditions results ultimately in the loss of viability. Retention of normal metabolic function in human preimplantation embryos, as well as those of other mammalian species, has been improved by the use of stage-appropriate culture media wherein energy substrates and amino acids are provided in a temporally evolving sequence. While the time dependence of nutrient exposure to embryos has received wide attention, spatial considerations in the embryonic microenvironment have received none. The manner in which media are presented to embryos, the rate at which media are changed, the rate at which cell products are removed and the macromolecular influences upon embryonic microenvironments have received far less attention in the experimental literature. Recent advances in micro-scale engineering allows for the rapid production of matrices containing culture channels slightly larger than the dimensions of preimplantation embryos. Microfluidic systems hold great promise for providing physical configurations yielding significantly reduced volumes but simultaneously providing control over the dynamics of media change and waste removal via fluid flow with time. Additionally, macromolecules may be presented from fixed sites in a minimum volume of solvent thus allowing us to test the importance of space and geometry in facilitating the physical and chemical effectiveness of the embryonic milieu, thus advancing the production of viable human embryos in vitro.
White Fox: However, some disagree, arguing that this science could lead to viewing children as “things”.
Hermit: Why is this relevant? Are children not "things"?
White Fox: It is relevent because people who disagree are allowed in fairness to voice their own opinions, and I see no reason in the eschewal of their argument. Of course we are all "things" in one sence or the next; I however dislike the term, viewing it as crude and rather unaiding to a situation where details are needed. Of course there is the negative incitive of being called a "thing" rather then a "human being", meaning perhaps that they would (as "things") be classed lower then others like them (not "as" human), thus suffering prejudice in these ways; which is what I would think those who disagree are trying to voice. I can empathize and see where the people who argue this are coming from, but in context I do find it evanescent, we are all "things" of life dispite our origin. I would guess that (some) people of such fear evolutionary change.
White Fox: In their views it seems the further we erode the mystery of how human life develops the more appealing it becomes to improve technology and demand greater control.
Hermit: Why is this perceived as a "bad thing" - if indeed this is the perception you are attempting to convey?
White Fox: As far as I can tell this is percieved as a "bad thing", but not from myself. In my last post I felt it only fair to voice those who disagree with such future prospects as well as thoes who dont. Maybe they consider such ignorance as bliss, or use this to voice their objections in a way that attempts to veil their own fears of it. I would like to know, with abit more clarity what people exactly mean with such statement.
White Fox: In the near term, experts say, most women will probably gestate their children the old-fashioned way,
Hermit: This will probably prejudice the offspring of such breeders. A selected zygote, raised with excellent nutrition (which cannot be ensured in a human host) should do much better than those raised by "old-fashioned breeders." An additional issue is that "old fashioned breeders" are likely to comprise religious nut-cases and burners of steam-looms. So the prejudice may not be a bad thing from the perspective of human evolution.
White Fox: I would concur. The majority of cases in this sence would likely (for the time being) prefer upon the view of "natural conception" and "natural gestation" or even religious views - even though I see no reasonable sense in living in the past when evolution is at hand just for the sake of "natural" or "religious" propaganda.
White Fox: Ultimately, this technology could enable anyone; single, married, male, female, young, old, heterosexual or gay, to combine DNA from their own body with a selected third party, and voila; the gene pool marches on - and so no morning sickness or other negative side-effects.
Hermit: It also has the potential to deemotionalize, simplify and act as a major enabler of both partial (acephalic) and reproductive cloning.
White Fox: If technology ever evolves far enough so that this is made a safe and secure procedure (unlike today) and provided that the reason was ethically just (based on circumstance) why would you inhibit this? Of course the main moral objection to attempts at human cloning right now is that a child might be damaged by such an origination. Researchers have not been able to safely and reliably create non-human primates by cloning. If there would come a day when the above safety objection was no more, the remaining ethical arguments against human cloning would be psychological. But then cloning also exists in nature in some species and is referred to as parthenogenesis (in this sense one could argue cloning as an inherently natural state instead of artificial) ((based on circumstance and evolution)). An example is the "Little Fire Ant" (Wasmannia auropunctata), which is native to Central and South America but has spread throughout many tropical environments. In this species, circumstantial evidence from microsatellite DNA suggests that both queens and males may reproduce clonally in one population in Suriname. If humanity was ever on the verge of extinction for example would cloning not be a useful technology to annex? providing we could harness the hight of its potential of course. An example of this would be that in real life, one of the most anticipated targets for cloning was once the Woolly mammoth, but attempts to extract DNA from frozen mammoths have been unsuccessful. Cloning, or more precisely, the reconstruction of functional DNA from extinct species has, for decades, been a dream of some scientists.
White Fox: Artificial wombs could bring all aborted embryos to term, thus saving countless lives.
Hermit: This sentence is so wrong that it almost made me verbalize my annoyance. For starters, an embryo is not "a life". It is a potential life. So even if "all aborted embryos" could be brought "to term" it would not "save" a single life, never mind countless lives.
White Fox: I would respectfully disagree with this. In my academic experience an embryo is not a life only before it is implanted into a female's womb any more than a seed is before it is placed into the ground and allowed to germinate. A potential life would be something which is viable for survivle, growth, development, metabolism, adaptation, response to stimuli, reproduction and organisation - which is in no such state; i.e a seed not yet planted. A life would indicate survivle, organisation, growth, development and adaptation - via growth which over time leads to the development of stimuli, metabolism and reproduction (inextricable united formation) ((in viable cases)) which is exactly what takes place during gestation. I would even classify the destruction of such a potentual life as unethical; why destroy possible life where it can be inhibited, stored and kept for a more idealistic future situation.
Hermit: Secondly, this appears to presume that "all aborted embryos" should be brought to term.
White Fox: Where this is possible, yes.
Hermit: I would suggest that as we learn more about humans and genetics, that we should become much more selective, not less so.This suggests that the artificial wombs should also be able to eject the tissue contained in them into a blender at any time during development if an insoluble problem is detected, rather than engaging in heroic surgical or genetic interventions (which artificial wombs would also facilitate)
White Fox: Selective, yes. Unfair, no. Even potential life has the right to exist. I would suggest storage for such undesirable and problematic "potential organisms". If they should die then it should be by natural means, not human intent - where there is life, there is hope.
Hermit: A zygote does not have the ability to hear until late in development, and the brain only develops appropriate receptive differentiators near full term. So infants raised from a sufficiently early point by a NICU after premature delivery do not experience this, and of course, neither do deaf infants. And the offspring of comatose or mute parents would not experience their mother's voices. So we know that aside from anthropomorphic emotionalism on the part of caregivers, that this is unimportant. Nonetheless, it would be trivial to synthesize it.
White Fox: A point well made. Though I wouldnt like to disregard it completly yet.
White Fox: Development of artificial wombs drives forward because of the promise it holds for saving lives. Many premature births do not survive long when placed in today’s (crude) incubator systems; think of all the embryos discarded from abortions that end up in death.
Hermit: An aborted embryo has never lived and therefore cannot "end up in death."
White Fox: Never "lived" in the sense that we ourselves live no, but, "live", as in a state of life I would consider plausible. But I would not like to disregard this yet as life is still somewhat ambiguous in a sense of genisis.
White Fox: Artificial wombs would enable placing these unwanted embryos up for adoption; ergo more lives saved.
Hermit: Aaaaaargh! There are too many people and babies already. "Adoption" is only an option when babies are scarce, in good condition and therefore valued.
White Fox: Lol. This is true. Our planet is over populated and this, along with genetic inviable problems, presents the only logical fact I can see in inhibiting life to preservation (cryopreservation), though not destroy its existence. Maybe we could use up more space over the planet - I invision a future where there are sky citys, underwater citys even unerground citys. If the human race survives that long of course, or maybe even if we're still on this rock. Just a vision.
Hermit: If the "vision" is your idea that "This new technology will save lives" or "most people would not see this as wrong" then it is so irrational as to be quite insane.
White Fox: Well its not really my vision, but I do support the vision of its potential. Plus I think in the long term people would adapt to it. I weyken that in the beginning most people would be ignorant of it, and thus not like it. But this can be said of a few things which over time have gained acceptance to some degree, while in the beginning were viewed with controversy and dislike, its just evolution and the need to adapt.
Mermaid: of course, i'd be more than happy to send a couple of my 'babies' to outerspace to colonise space. i am sure they can be tinkered with to adapt to non-earth environment.
White Fox: Great idea! and theoretically alluring.
Mermaid: ETA: hey guys? how about a skeleton for a short story based on this?
White Fox: Sounds cool, what did you have in mind?
Fox
|
I've never expected a miracle. I will get things done myself. - Gatsu
|
|
|
Bass
Magister
Posts: 196
Reputation: 6.28
Rate Bass
I'm a llama!
|
|
Re:Artificial Wombs: A vision of controversy?
« Reply #4 on: 2006-06-25 19:54:50 » |
|
This is a revolutionary idea, i like it. Well explained cheers for this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
