Artificial reproduction technologies (RTs) – all the way to the artificial womb?

Scientific Contribution
First Online:

Abstract

In this paper, I argue that the development of an artificial womb is already well on its way. By putting together pieces of information arising from new scientific advances in different areas, (neo-natal care, gynecology, embryology, the human genome project and computer science), I delineate a distinctive picture, which clearly suggests that the artificial womb may become a reality sooner than we may think. Currently, there is a huge gap between the first stages of gestation (using in vitro fertilization) and the 22nd week (inside the womb). At the present time this gap seems an insurmountable barrier for fully developing a fetus outside a natural womb – a notion better known as ectogenesis. The history of science however, suggests that impenetrable barriers are such only temporarily. It is just a matter of time (and due research) until someone – intentionally or by chance – accesses the right answer and finds a way to overcome existing obstacles. Despite misgivings that the case of the artificial womb presents too many barriers, it would be naïve to suppose things would happen any differently. I observe in this paper, that it is time to acknowledge the consequences of new developments in different areas of scientific research which are leading to the advent of an artificial womb; and I modestly suggest that we might initiate a discussion on this topic now, while we have still enough time to decide what we may want and why.

Keywords

artificial reproduction technologies artificial womb ectogenesis embryology gynecology human genome project neo-natal care 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Ahn J.I., Lee K.H. and Shin D.M. (2004). Comprehensive Transcriptome Analysis of Differentiation of Embryonic Stem Cells into Midbrain and Hindbrain Neurons. Developmental Biology 265: 491–501CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander, D.: 2000, ‘Foreword from Cells to Selves Strategic Plan 2000’ National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. http://www.nichd.nih.gov/strategicplan/cells
  3. Baretton G.B., Muller M., Wirtz A. and Murken J. (1998). Numerical Chromosome Aberrations in Abortion Tissue. Comparison of Conventional Cytogenetics and Interphase Cytogenetics in Paraffin Sections and Nuclear Suspensions. Pathology 19: 120–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ber R. (2000). Ethical Issues in Gestational Surrogacy. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 21: 153–169CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Brandenberger R., Wei H., Zhang S., Lei S. and Murage J. (2004). Transcriptome Characterization Elucidates Signaling Networks that Control Human ES Cell Growth and Differentiation. Nature Biotechnology 22: 707–716CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Cook R., Dickens B.M. and Fathalla M.F. (2003). Reproductive Health and Human Rights. Oxford University Press, NYGoogle Scholar
  7. Dahoun-Hadorn, J.M. and Williamson, C.: 2003, ‘Chromosome Pathology Reproductive Health’ Geneva Foundation for Medical Education and Research. http://www.gfmer. ch/Books/Reproductive_health/Chromosome_pathology. html accessed 20.7.04
  8. Eben, D.: 2004, ‘Numbers on Premature Babies’ Saturday supplement Maariv newspaper (in Hebrew), 16.7.04: p. 2.Google Scholar
  9. Harris J. (1998). Clones, Genes and Immortality. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Jennings B. (1988). Beyond the Right of the Newborn. Rarita 7: 79–93Google Scholar
  11. Karsten S.L., Kudo L.C., Jackson R., Sabatti C., Kornblum H.I. and Geschwind D.H. (2003). Global Analysis of Gene Expression in Neural Progenitors Reveals Specific Cell-cycle, Signaling, and Metabolic Networks. Developmental Biology 261: 165–182CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Lee S.K., McMillan D.D. and Ohlson A. (2000). ‘Variations in Practice and Outcomes in the Canadian NICU Network: 1996–1997’. Pediatrics 106: 1070–1079CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Lorenz J.M. (2001). The Outcome of Extreme Prematurity. Seminars in Perinatology 25: 348–359CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Ly H. (2003). ‘Perinatal Care at the Threshold of Viability – from Principles to Practice’, Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore 32: 362–375Google Scholar
  15. Marantz Henig R. (2004). Pandora’s Baby. Houghton Mifflin, NYGoogle Scholar
  16. Marchetti F., Bishop J.B. and Cosentino L. (2004). Paternally Transmitted Chromosomal Aberrations in Mouse Zygotes Determine Their Embryonic Fate. Biology of Reproduction 70: 616–624CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Piecuh R.E., Leonard C.H. and Cooper B.A. (1997). ‘Outcome of Extremely Low Birth Weight Infants (500–999 g) over a 12-year period’, Pediatrics 100: 633–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rosenberg, J.: 2001, ‘The World’s First Test-Tube Baby. A Triumph in Medicine that Cased Fears for the Future’ 20th Century History. http://history1900s.about.com/library/weekly/aa043001a.htm. accessed 7.7.2004
  19. Sills, J.: 2003, ‘Understanding Catastrophic Health Care Exposures Neonatal Intensive Care – How Did We Get Here and Where Are We Going?’ American Re-HealthCare Symposium, 2003. http://www.amre.com/hc2003/summaries/sills.htm accessed 23.03.2004
  20. Singer P. and Wells D. (1984). The Reproduction Revolution. New ways to Making Babies. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  21. Strong C. (2002). Overview: A Framework for Reproductive Ethics. In: Dickenson, D.L. (eds) Ethical Issues in Maternal-fetal Medicine, pp 17–36. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Watt, N.: 2004, ‘Steel Calls for Abortion Limit to be Cut’ The Guardian, July 5. http://society.guardian.co.uk/ accessed 5.7.04
  23. Wilmut I. and Dominsky T. (2000). Editorial. Government Encouragement for Therapeutic Cloning. Cloning 2: 53–54CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Zmora E. (2001). Ethics and Neonatology in Israel. The Journal of Clinical Ethics 12: 304–307PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Zmora, E.: 2001, ‘From Cells to Selves Strategic Plan 2000’, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. See http://www.nichd.nih.gov/strategicplan/cells
  26. Zmora, E.: 2001, The Associated Press. http://msnbc.msn. com/id/3088015/accessed 29.6.04
  27. Zmora, E.: 2001, ‘A Report of the President’s Council on␣Bioethics. 2004 ‘Reproduction and Responsibility’, The Regulation of New Biotechnologies. Washington, D.C. http://www.bioethics.gov.
  28. Zmora, E.: 2001, ‘Proceed with Care.’ Final Report of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies 1993 Minister of Government Services, Canada. Ottawa: Canada Communications Group.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Women’s HealthBen Gurion UniversityBeer-ShevaIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Health System ManagementEmek Yezreel Valley CollegeEmek YezreelIsrael
  3. 3.Moshav MaorIsrael

Personalised recommendations