Advertisement

Annals of Biomedical Engineering

, Volume 45, Issue 7, pp 1620–1632 | Cite as

Balancing Ethical Pros and Cons of Stem Cell Derived Gametes

  • Seppe SegersEmail author
  • Heidi Mertes
  • Guido de Wert
  • Wybo Dondorp
  • Guido Pennings
Reproductive Tissue Engineering

Abstract

In this review we aim to provide an overview of the most important ethical pros and cons of stem cell derived gametes (SCD-gametes), as a contribution to the debate about reproductive tissue engineering. Derivation of gametes from stem cells holds promising applications both for research and for clinical use in assisted reproduction. We explore the ethical issues connected to gametes derived from embryonic stem cells (both patient specific and non-patient specific) as well as those related to gametes derived from induced pluripotent stem cells. The technology of SCD-gametes raises moral concerns of how reproductive autonomy relates to issues of embryo destruction, safety, access, and applications beyond clinical infertility.

Keywords

Artificial gametes Assisted reproductive technologies Embryo research Gametogenesis Infertility Parenthood Stem cells 

Notes

Funding

The study was funded by Innovation by Science and Technology in Flanders (IWT), (Project Number: 150042).

Conflict of interest

There are no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Adams, J., and R. Light. Scientific consensus, the law, and same sex parenting outcomes. Soc. Sci. Res. 53:300–310, 2015.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baylis, F. The ethics of creating children with three genetic parents. Reprod. Biomed. Online 26:531–534, 2013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bhartiya, D., I. Hinduja, H. Patel, and R. Bhilawadikar. Making gametes from pluripotent stem cells—a promising role for very small embryonic-like stem cells. Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol. 12:114, 2014.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bourne, H., T. Douglas, and J. Savulescu. Procreative beneficence and in vitro gametogenesis. Monash Bioeth. Rev. 30:29–48, 2012.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bredenoord, A. L., G. Pennings, H. J. Smeets, and G. de Wert. Dealing with uncertainties: ethics of prenatal diagnosis and preimplantation genetic diagnosis to prevent mitochondrial disorders. Hum. Reprod. Update 14:83–94, 2008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carbone, J. Peer commentary: in vitro gametogenesis: just another way to have a baby. J. Law Biosci. 2016. doi: 10.1093/jlb/lsw041.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carrell, D. T. ICSI is a revolutionary treatment of male infertility that should be employed discriminately and further studied. In: Biennial Review of Infertility, Vol. 3, edited by N. P. Schlegel, C. B. Fauser, D. T. Carrell, and C. Racowsky. New York: Springer, 2013, pp. 215–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chung, Y., I. Klimanskaya, S. Becker, T. Li, M. Maserati, S. Lu, T. Zdravkovic, D. Ilic, O. Genbacev, S. Fisher, A. Krtolica, and R. Lanza. Human embryonic stem cell lines generated without embryo destruction. Cell Stem Cell 2:113–117, 2008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cutas, D., W. Dondorp, T. Swierstra, S. Repping, and G. de Wert. Artificial gametes: perspectives of geneticists, ethicists and representatives of potential users. Med. Health Care Philos. 17:339–345, 2014.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cutas, D., and A. Smajdor. Postmenopausal motherhood reloaded: advanced age and in vitro derived gametes. Hypatia 30:386–402, 2015.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cutas, D., and A. Smajdor. “I am your mother and your father!” In vitro derived gametes and the ethics of solo reproduction. Health Care Anal. 2016. doi: 10.1007/s10728-016-0321-7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    da Fonseca, F. G., D. M. Ribeiro, N. P. Carvalho, and B. Stancioli. Human in vitro eugenics: close, yet far away. J. Med. Ethics 40:738–739, 2014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    de Wert, G. Human embryonale stamcellen als Heilige Graal. Een ethische reflectie. Filosofie & Praktijk 22:34–56, 2001.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    de Wert, G., W. Dondorp, F. Shenfield, P. Barri, P. Devroey, K. Diedrich, B. Tarlatzis, V. Provoost, and G. Pennings. ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law 23: medically assisted reproduction in singles, lesbian and gay couples, and transsexual people. Hum. Reprod. 29:1859–1865, 2014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    de Wert, G., and C. Mummery. Human embryonic stem cells: research, ethics and policy. Hum. Reprod. 18:672–682, 2003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Devolder, K. Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research: why the discarded-created-distinction cannot be based on the potentiality argument. Bioethics 19:167–186, 2005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Di Nucci, E. IVF, same-sex couples and the value of biological ties. J. Med. Ethics 2016. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2015-103257.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dondorp, W. J., and G. M. de Wert. Fertility preservation for healthy women: ethical aspects. Hum. Reprod. 24:1779–1785, 2009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dondorp, W. J., G. M. de Wert, and P. M. Janssens. Shared lesbian motherhood: a challenge of established concepts and frameworks. Hum. Reprod. 25:812–814, 2010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Douglas, T., C. Harding, H. Bourne, and J. Savulescu. Stem cell research and same sex reproduction. In: Stem Cells: New Frontiers in Science & Ethics, edited by M. Quigley, S. Chan, and J. Harris. New Jersey: World Scientific, 2012, pp. 207–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Easley, C. A., B. T. Phillips, M. M. McGuire, J. M. Barringer, H. Valli, B. P. Hermann, C. R. Simerly, A. Rajkovic, T. Miki, K. E. Orwig, and G. P. Schatten. Direct differentiation of human pluripotent stem cells into haploid spermatogenic cells. Cell Rep. 2:440–446, 2012.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eichenlaub-Ritter, U. Female meiosis and beyond: more questions than answers? Reprod. Biomed. Online 24:589–590, 2012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Oocyte donation to postmenopausal women. Fertil. Steril. 82(Supplement 1):254–255, 2004.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fujita, M., Y. Yashiro, and M. Suzuki. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater: a critique of Sparrow’s inclusive definition of the term ‘in vitro eugenics’. J. Med. Ethics 40:735–736, 2014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gómez-Lobo, A. Does respect for embryos entail respect for gametes? Theor. Med. Bioeth. 25:199–208, 2004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Greely, H. T. The End of Sex and the Future of Human Reproduction. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Heindryckx, B., P. De Sutter, J. Gerris, M. Dhont, and J. Van der Elst. Embryo development after successful somatic cell nuclear transfer to in vitro matured human germinal vesicle oocytes. Hum. Reprod. 22:1982–1990, 2007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hendriks, S., E. A. F. Dancet, A. M. M. van Pelt, G. Hamer, and S. Repping. Artificial gametes: a systematic review of biological progress towards clinical application. Hum. Reprod. Update 21:285–296, 2015.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hendriks, S., W. Dondorp, G. de Wert, G. Hamer, S. Repping, and E. A. F. Dancet. Potential consequences of clinical application of artificial gametes: a systematic review of stakeholder views. Hum. Reprod. Update 21:297–309, 2015.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hendriks, S., M. Hessel, M. H. Mochtar, A. Meissner, F. van der Veen, S. Repping, and E. A. F. Dancet. Couples with non-obstructive azoospermia are interested in future treatments with artificial gametes. Hum. Reprod. 31:1738–1748, 2016.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hikabe, O., N. Hamazaki, G. Nagamatsu, Y. Obata, Y. Hirao, N. Hamada, S. Shimamoto, T. Imamura, K. Nakashima, and M. Saitou. Reconstitution in vitro of the entire cycle of the mouse female germ line. Nature 539:299–303, 2016.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hinxton Group. Consensus statement: Science, ethics and policy challenges of pluripotent stem cell-derived gametes. [online]. Available from: http://www.hinxtongroup.org/au_pscdg_cs.html. Accessed 10 Oct 2016.
  33. 33.
    Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Code of Practice: welfare of the child. [online]. Available from: http://www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/Guidance_Note_8_-_Welfare_of_the_Child.pdf. Accessed 10 Oct 2016.
  34. 34.
    Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, Ethics and Law Committee. In vitro derived gametes. Report of the Meeting of 16th January 2006. [online]. Available from: http://www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/ELC_In_vitro_derived_gametes_Jan06.pdf. Accessed 10 Oct 2016.
  35. 35.
    Hyun, I. What’s wrong with human/nonhuman chimera research? PLoS Biol. 2016. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002535.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ishii, T., and R. A. R. Pera. Creating human germ cells for unmet reproductive needs. Nat. Biotech. 34:470–473, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ishii, T., R. A. R. Pera, and H. T. Greely. Ethical and legal issues arising in research on inducing human germ cells from pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 13:145–148, 2013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kashir, J., C. Jones, T. Child, S. A. Williams, and K. Coward. Viability assessment for artificial gametes: the need for biomarkers of functional competency. Biol. Reprod. 87:114, 2012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Langerova, A., H. Fulka, and J. Fulka. Somatic cell nuclear transfer-derived embryonic stem cell lines in humans: pros and cons. Cell. Reprogram. 15:481–483, 2013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lawlor, R. Questioning the significance of the non-identity problem in applied ethics. J. Med. Ethics 2015. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2014-102391.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lippman, A., and S. A. Newman. The ethics of deriving gametes from ES cells. Science 307:515–517, 2005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    MacKellar, C. Representative aspects of some synthetic gametes. New Bioeth. 21:105–116, 2015.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Malik, N., and M. S. Rao. A review of the methods for human iPSC derivation. Methods Mol. Biol. 997:23–33, 2013.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Master, Z. Embryonic stem-cell gametes: the new frontier in human reproduction. Hum. Reprod. 21:857–863, 2006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mathews, D. J. H. Language matters. J. Med. Ethics 40:733–734, 2014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mathews, D. J. H., P. J. Donovan, J. Harris, R. Lovell-Badge, J. Savulescu, and R. Faden. Pluripotent stem cell-derived gametes: truth and (potential) consequences. Cell Stem Cell 5:11–14, 2009.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Mertes, H. A moratorium on breeding better babies. J. Med. Ethics 40:734–735, 2014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Mertes, H. Gamete derivation from stem cells: revisiting the concept of genetic parenthood. J. Med. Ethics 40:744–747, 2014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Mertes, H., and G. Pennings. Oocyte donation for stem cell research. Hum Reprod. 22:629–634, 2007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Mertes, H., and G. Pennings. Embryonic stem cell-derived gametes and genetic parenthood: a problematic relationship. Camb. Q. Healthc. Ethics 17:7–14, 2008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Mertes, H., and G. Pennings. Gamete generation from stem cells: an ethicist’s view. In: Stem Cells in Human Reproduction: Basic Science and Therapeutic Potential, edited by C. Simón, and A. Pellicer. London: Informa Healthcare, 2009, pp. 14–21.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Mertes, H., and G. Pennings. Ethical aspects of the use of stem cell derived gametes for reproduction. Health Care Anal. 18:267–278, 2010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Moreno, I., J. M. Míguez-Forjan, and C. Simón. Artificial gametes from stem cells. Clin. Exp. Reprod. Med. 42:33–44, 2015.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Mouka, A., G. Tachdjian, J. Dupont, L. Drévillon, and L. Tosca. In vitro gamete differentiation from pluripotent stem cells as a promising therapy for infertility. Stem Cells Dev. 25:509–521, 2016.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Murphy, T. F. The meaning of synthetic gametes for gay and lesbian people and bioethics too. J. Med. Ethics 40:762–765, 2014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Newson, A. J., and A. C. Smajdor. Artificial gametes: new paths to parenthood? J. Med. Ethics 31:184–186, 2005.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Novel techniques for the prevention of mitochondrial DNA disease: An ethical review. [online]. Available from: http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/sites/default/files/Novel_techniques_for_the_prevention_of_mitochondrial_DNA_diseases_compressed.pdf/. Accessed 10 Oct 2016.
  58. 58.
    Palacios-González, C. Ethical aspects of creating human–non-human chimeras capable of human gamete production and human pregnancy. Monash Bioeth. Rev. 33:181–202, 2015.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Palacios-González, C., J. Harris, and G. Testa. Multiplex parenting: IVG and the generations to come. J. Med. Ethics 40:752–758, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Parfit, D. Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Clarendon Press, p. 560, 1984.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Pennings, G. Measuring the welfare of the child: in search of the appropriate evaluation principle. Hum. Reprod. 14:1146–1150, 1999.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Pennings, G., G. de Wert, F. Shenfield, J. Cohen, B. Tarlatzis, and P. Devroey. ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law 13: the welfare of the child in medically assisted reproduction. Hum. Reprod. 22:2585–2588, 2007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Peters, P. G. How Safe is Safe Enough? Obligations to the Children of Reproductive Technology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Provoost, V., G. Pennings, P. De Sutter, J. Gerris, A. Van de Velde, and M. Dhont. Reflections by patients who undergo IVF on the use of their supernumerary embryos for science. Reprod. Biomed. Online 20:880–891, 2010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Raes, I., H. Van Parys, V. Provoost, A. Buysse, P. De Sutter, and G. Pennings. Parental (in)equality and the genetic link in lesbian families. J. Reprod. Infant. Psychol. 32:457–468, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Rashid, T., T. Kobayashi, and H. Nakauchi. Revisiting the flight of Icarus: making human organs from PSCs with large animal chimeras. Cell Stem Cell 15:406–409, 2014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Ravelingien, A., and G. Pennings. The right to know your genetic parents: from open-identity gamete donation to routine paternity testing. Am. J. Bioeth. 13:33–41, 2013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Rulli, T. What is the value of three-parent IVF? Hastings Cent. Rep. 46:38–47, 2016.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Savulescu, J., and G. Kahane. The moral obligation to create children with the best chance of the best life. Bioethics 23:274–290, 2009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Sawai, T. The moral value of induced pluripotent stem cells: a Japanese bioethics perspective on human embryo research. J. Med. Ethics 40:766–769, 2014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Schmidt, C. W. The yuck factor when disgust meets discovery. Environ. Health Perspect. 116:A524–A527, 2008.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Shaw, D., W. Dondorp, N. Geijsen, and G. de Wert. Creating human organs in chimaera pigs: an ethical source of immunocompatible organs? J. Med. Ethics 41:970–974, 2015.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Siegel, A. W. Some doubts about in vitro eugenics as a human enhancement technology. J. Med. Ethics 40:732, 2014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Silva, M., L. Daheron, H. Hurley, K. Bure, R. Barker, A. J. Carr, D. Williams, H. Kim, A. French, P. J. Coffey, J. J. Cooper-White, B. Reeve, M. Rao, E. Y. Snyder, K. S. Ng, B. E. Mead, J. A. Smith, J. M. Karp, D. A. Brindley, and I. Wall. Generating iPSCs: translating cell reprogramming science into scalable and robust biomanufacturing strategies. Cell Stem Cell 16:13–17, 2015.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Skene, L. Deriving sperm and eggs from human skin cells: facilitating community discussion. J. Contemp. Health Law Policy 25:76–82, 2008.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Smajdor, A. How useful is the concept of the ‘harm threshold’ in reproductive ethics and law? Theor. Med. Bioeth. 35:321–336, 2014.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Smajdor, A., and D. Cutas. Artificial gametes and the ethics of unwitting parenthood. J. Med. Ethics 40:748–751, 2014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Smajdor, A., and D. Cutas. Will artificial gametes end infertility? Health Care Anal. 23:134–147, 2015.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Smajdor A. and D. Cutas. Background paper: Artificial gametes. Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2015.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Sparrow, R. Cloning, parenthood, and genetic relatedness. Bioethics 20:308–318, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Sparrow, R. Orphaned at conception: the uncanny offspring of embryos. Bioethics 26:173–181, 2012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Sparrow, R. In vitro eugenics. J. Med. Ethics 40:725–731, 2014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Steinbock, B. Moral status, moral value, and human embryos: implications for stem cell research. In: The Oxford Handbook of Bioethics, edited by B. Steinbock. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011, pp. 416–440.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Suter, S. M. In vitro gametogenesis: just another way to have a baby? J. Law Biosci. 3:87–119, 2015.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Tachibana, M., P. Amato, M. Sparman, N. M. Gutierrez, R. Tippner-Hedges, H. Ma, E. Kang, A. Fulati, H. Lee, H. Sritanaudomchai, K. Masterson, J. Larson, D. Eaton, K. Sadler-Fredd, D. Battaglia, D. Lee, D. Wu, J. Jensen, P. Patton, S. Gokhale, R. L. Stouffer, D. Wolf, and S. Mitalipov. Human embryonic stem cells derived by somatic cell nuclear transfer. Cell 153:1228–1238, 2013.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Takahashi, K., and S. Yamanaka. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell 126:663–676, 2006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Testa, G., and J. Harris. Ethical aspects of ES cell-derived gametes. Science 305:1719, 2004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Testa, G., and J. Harris. Ethics and synthetic gametes. Bioethics 19:146–166, 2005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Testa, G., and J. Harris. Response to Lippman and Newman. Science 307:515–516, 2005.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    The Telegraph. Single men will get the right to start a family under new definition of infertility. [online]. Available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/19/single-men-will-get-the-right-to-start-a-family-under-new-defini/. Accessed 17 Nov 2016.
  91. 91.
    Vassena, R. Genome engineering through CRISPR/Cas9 technology in the human germline and pluripotent stem cells. Hum. Reprod. Update 22:411–419, 2016.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Watt, H. Ancestor embryos: embryonic gametes and genetic parenthood. J. Med. Ethics 40:759–761, 2014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Wyverkens, E., V. Provoost, A. Ravelingien, G. Pennings, P. De Sutter, and A. Buysse. The meaning of the sperm donor for heterosexual couples: confirming the position of the father. Fam. Proc. 2015. doi: 10.1111/famp.12156.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Zhou, Q., M. Wang, Y. Yuan, X. Wang, R. Fu, H. Wan, M. Xie, M. Liu, X. Guo, Y. Zheng, G. Feng, Q. Shi, X. Y. Zhao, J. Sha, and Q. Zhou. Complete meiosis from embryonic stem cell-derived germ cells in vitro. Cell Stem Cell 18:330–340, 2016.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Biomedical Engineering Society 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seppe Segers
    • 1
    Email author
  • Heidi Mertes
    • 1
  • Guido de Wert
    • 2
  • Wybo Dondorp
    • 2
  • Guido Pennings
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and Moral Sciences, Bioethics Institute GhentGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Department of Health, Ethics and Society, Research Schools CAPHRI and GROWMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations