Artificial Womb

[fiveworlds]

What do you think about the idea of artificial wombs? Are you for or against them? http://technology.nymeta.co/artificial-womb/?utm_source=ef&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=matrixef

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/01/04/artificial-wombs-the-coming-era-of-motherless-births/

[MonDie]

Don't trust the first website, nymeta. https://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/nymeta.co

---

WIRED article on artificially gestated sharks. http://www.wired.com/2011/09/artificial-shark-uterus/

A New Artificial Placenta With a Centrifugal Pump: Long-Term Total Extrauterine Support of a Goat

http://www.jtcvsonline.org/article/S0022-5223(98)70401-5/abstract?cc=y=

No luck on overviews of current neonatal care techniques, but...

Death in the neonatal intensive care unit: changing patterns of end of life care over two decades
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672727/

 

Regarding the ethics...

 

The Moral Imperative For Ectogenesis

http://annasmajdor.me.uk/ectogenesis_final.pdf

The source on this one looks sketchy, but it purports to be a credible paper.
Reproductive ectogenesis: The third era of human reproduction and some moral consequences

http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/paperbot/Reproductive%20ectogenesis:%20The%20third%20era%20of%20human%20reproduction%20and%20some%20moral%20consequences.pdf

Edited May 12, 2015 by MonDie

[EdEarl]

Humanity has enough wombs already. I doubt there would be a market for them. If they improve them enough for transplants, there might be a market for women who needed replacements and transgenders first time.

Edited May 12, 2015 by EdEarl

[StringJunky]

Humanity has enough wombs already. I doubt there would be a market for them. If they improve them enough for transplants, there might be a market for women who needed replacements and transgenders first time.

It would sell by the million; no more stretch marks.

Edited May 12, 2015 by StringJunky

[MonDie]

It would sell by the million; no more stretch marks.

 

Or surgerically repair the stretching...

[Phi for All]

It would sell by the million; no more stretch marks.

 

... no more extreme discomfort, no more risks (like falling) that affect both mom and baby, no more morning sickness, no more wild cravings, no more maternity leave, no more clothes that don't fit, and no more abstinence from alcohol. Yes, it would sell by the millions.

 

OTOH, no more feeling your child move, no more physical bond between mother and child, no more maternity leave, no more pampering of the mother (which I think builds a stronger bond between spouses), and no more "patience testing" (which is what I call the simultaneous growth of your new baby and your ability to cope with the changes the new baby brings to your body and lives).

 

Will the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

[MonDie]

---

 

Apparently mother-infant attachment can still be facilitated.

 

This article describes some aspects of a research project with identified factors that facilitate and hinder family and mother attachment to the infant during periods of separation subsequent to premature delivery or other problems which require management in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). [...]

The results of the study imply that when the family and mother are supported by an individualized approach to care and appropriate communication is used, attachment can be facilitated.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12048467

[EdEarl]

Yes! No hassle parenting.

[StringJunky]

 

... no more extreme discomfort, no more risks (like falling) that affect both mom and baby, no more morning sickness, no more wild cravings, no more maternity leave, no more clothes that don't fit, and no more abstinence from alcohol. Yes, it would sell by the millions.

 

OTOH, no more feeling your child move, no more physical bond between mother and child, no more maternity leave, no more pampering of the mother (which I think builds a stronger bond between spouses), and no more "patience testing" (which is what I call the simultaneous growth of your new baby and your ability to cope with the changes the new baby brings to your body and lives).

 

Will the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

Not by our current measures of what constitutes good care, but societal expectations and standards change over ensuing decades. Given that a not negligible number of women avoid breastfeeding and have Caeserean sections in order to preserve their bodies, I think other, possibly artificial, methodologies will be found to meet the needs of a developing foetus that are found wanting in an artificial womb. I can just picture a device, say the size and look of a water cooler/dispenser in the corner of a typical home; "Darling, can you get some more Baby-Gro tablets from Walmart on your way back?". Think of the photo opportunities: it'll bring a whole new phase of child development into constant view.

[dimreepr]

Not by our current measures of what constitutes good care, but societal expectations and standards change over ensuing decades. Given that a not negligible number of women avoid breastfeeding and have Caeserean sections in order to preserve their bodies, I think other, possibly artificial, methodologies will be found to meet the needs of a developing foetus that are found wanting in an artificial womb. I can just picture a device, say the size and look of a water cooler/dispenser in the corner of a typical home; "Darling, can you get some more Baby-Gro tablets from Walmart on your way back?". Think of the photo opportunities: it'll bring a whole new phase of child development into constant view.

 

 

 

Agreed given the number of elective C-section’s amongst women that have the option, I have no doubt this technology has a future.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/9796499/Why-50-per-cent-of-Chinese-women-are-opting-for-C-sections.html

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2290672/The-hospitals-wealthy-mothers-posh-push-babies-delivered-caesarean-section.html

[StringJunky]

 

 

 

Agreed given the number of elective C-section’s amongst women that have the option, I have no doubt this technology has a future.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/9796499/Why-50-per-cent-of-Chinese-women-are-opting-for-C-sections.html

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2290672/The-hospitals-wealthy-mothers-posh-push-babies-delivered-caesarean-section.html

Yes, when thinking about future society, one must be careful not to judge its potential behaviour and practices, by our contemporary ethical standards. You've only got to cast your own mind back a couple of generations - assuming one is old enough - to see clear disparities in generational aspirations.and expectations.

[MonDie]

I just read the two ethics papers. "The Moral Imperative for Ectogenesis" explains why developing this technology is important. Gestation entails many burdens and risks, and is in some sense like a nine-month illness. While the child is often produced for the couple, it is presently the woman who must bear these burdens. Contrastingly, our "conception of the good life" is often "instirically tied up with" having genetically-related offspring, yet many people can't except by employing a surrogate, which can be highly problematic e.g. if the surrogate becomes attached.

The "Third Era" paper was drawn out and dumb. However, Welin makes the point that, while ectogenesis does mean the fetus would be viable at conception, this option could reduce the conflict. With the fetus outside, the woman's good health, activity level, eating and drinking habits are all unhindered. It could also mean more power for the father.

 

Beyond humans, the researchers who artificially gestated a wobbegong shark hope the same technique could raise numbers for the grey nurse shark. I wonder whether it could allow us to resurrect species without a female of that species, nor even a closely related surrogate. In theory, they would only need some fertilized eggs! Why's nobody doing this with elephant embryos? We still have the frozen mammoth DNA, right?

Regarding the cost of developing the technology...

 

http://www.wired.com/2011/09/artificial-shark-uterus/

“We proved, I think, that this concept could work. But it would be incredibly expensive, a few million dollars at least, to fully develop this for grey nurse sharks,” Otway said. “I’m not sure the cost would be worth the benefit.”

[StringJunky]

..

Regarding the cost of developing the technology...

 

http://www.wired.com/2011/09/artificial-shark-uterus/

A few million... peanuts. Big Pharma spends hundreds of millions on one drug that may take a minimum of 12 years, and only about 1 in a 1000 exploratory drugs get there on the chemist's shelf. Once the essential technological pathway for artificial wombs has been successfully worked out, billions will be invested.

 

 

Drug makers can expect to spend more than $2.5 billion during more than a decade before winning approval to sell a new prescription medicine, according to an estimate released Tuesday by the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development.

 

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2014/11/18/cost-bringing-prescription-drug-market-tops-billion-tufts-research-center-estimates/6mPph8maRxzcvftWjr7HUN/story.html

Edited May 13, 2015 by StringJunky

[caters]

I honestly don't like the idea of artificial wombs for anything other than cultured egg and sperm cells. For naturally occuring ones that are still in people's bodies I think that artificial wombs should not be used.

 

While there is a risk of falling the baby is not likely to be injured because of the amniotic fluid and even then it is likely little tiny muscle tears due to it using its muscles a lot. If you fall during labor than the baby can be injured even more severely such as fractures.

 

Oxytocin levels rise when the breasts start producing colostrum and in active labor. This is also known as the love hormone and is what makes mothers have such strong bonds to their children even if their children don't have strong bonds to their moms. This also makes it possible to breastfeed along with the prolactin that is produced every menstrual cycle. This prolactin and oxytocin being secreted during every menstrual cycle makes it possible to breastfeed a baby when you haven't been pregnant yet(also known as induced lactation).

 

The extreme nausea is actually to an extent good for the woman. It lowers the amount of calories her body actually gets compared to how many calories she ate so obesity is less likely. It also gets any chemicals out of the stomach and small intestine which is good if you don't want liver failure.

 

Same thing goes for the extreme fatigue. The extreme fatigue is good for the woman because that makes more of her energy, including fat be devoted to the baby and not her own cells which can burn the fat reserves and glycogen that is released from the liver and muscles. In other words glucagon rises without causing anything similar to diabetes because the cells are using that glucose and devoting some to the growing baby.

 

The other symptoms like extreme hunger, abdominal pain, and a higher sensitivity to smells also have their advantages.

 

These advantages outweigh the disadvantages and thus artificial wombs would have more disadvantages and should not be used just to make infertile people have babies. I mean what if the egg splits into 15 eggs(which has actually happened once in a pregnant woman) and you have a really large artificial womb? You are going to get 15 babies of which you can breastfeed a maximum of 6. That is a lot of formula for you to produce, even more than 1 baby would need for a whole day. Not to mention thousands of dollars in diapers and cribs and everything else. To take care of 15 babies and still have enough to buy stuff for yourself and your husband you would need at least $1M in your account. For most people that isn't feasible even for people with high paying jobs such as doctors.

 

So at best artificial wombs should not be used at all.

[MonDie]

Perhaps oxytocin facilitates bonding, but what about postpartum psychosis and depression? Adopted children seem fine to me.

If it is healthy for mothers, so what? For the fetus, artificial gestation gives us control over its nutrition. No more fetal alcohol syndrome! And no need to smell toxins with olfaction, which is on its way out for humans anyway.

You speak of milk. Natural human milk might be superior to formula, and so might a natural placenta, but only if the fetus-carrier is responsible. Is your argument that our current understanding of gestation is insufficient for reproducing a healthy pregnancy?

Edited May 18, 2015 by MonDie

[caters]

Sure adopted children are fine but artificially made children are not.

 

And yes my argument is that our understanding of gestation is insufficient for reproducing a healthy pregnancy.

 

I mean if you think "Oh the baby needs a lot of glucose because it is very active" and give it a lot of glucose you might end up with fetal diabetes, that is diabetes in the fetus. If you were to assign it as type I or type II it would probably be type II because the fetus gains weight. But then again it is also likely to be type I because that often occurs in young people.

 

A baby being born with diabetes is much much worse than an adult diagnosed with diabetes because the baby can't control its diabetes. So it could easily cause the baby to be blind as an adult or have end stage kidney failure when it goes to college(that is if it goes to college). It could also cause acidosis in the baby which is even worse because if that goes far enough without taking something to raise alkalinity it could cause autodigestion of the blood vessels which could make it bleed to death.

 

If you give it a lot of fat the fetus will go through ketosis. This could cause the fetus to be underweight and not very healthy at all because of fat reserves being depleted.

 

If you give it a lot of protein it would be healthiest out of all the nutrients that have calories because it would build muscle in the fetus. A muscular baby is much better than a diabetic baby or a baby that has went through ketosis.

[dimreepr]

Sure adopted children are fine but artificially made children are not.

 

 

 

How is a child gestated artificially, artificial?

[MonDie]

 

 

How is a child gestated artificially, artificial?

 

Child who was gestated artificially

 

I read that and went, wha... guh... zuh?

Edited May 18, 2015 by MonDie

[StringJunky]

 

 

How is a child gestated artificially, artificial?

Yeah, it's like 'chemical' vs 'natural' pills... it's ALL chemical, DAMMIT!

[caters]

It is artificial because it is as if you built it cell by cell. Also identical babies are much more likely in an artificial womb.

[StringJunky]

It is artificial because it is as if you built it cell by cell. Also identical babies are much more likely in an artificial womb.

Regardless of where it's development occurs and the means by which it was conceived, it is no less artificial than baby a born inside a woman. I think of an artificial object as something that is made from something different to the original.

[caters]

But a baby born inside a woman is natural because it was conceived via the natural process of sexual reproduction. Culturing egg and sperm and then injecting sperm into the egg culture to fertilize it is artificial because this wouldn't happen naturally. Nor would 1 organism carefully building a baby cell by cell.

 

So I think of artificial as being something that has went through a manmade process in the case of making an organism, made from mixing ingredients that don't naturally occur in a product(such as sodium benzoate for preservation) with the natural part of the product(such as fruit juices) in the case of food, or something completely synthetic(in other words it does not have any natural component).

[StringJunky]

If we compare some sodium chloride (table salt) from raw rock salt and sodium chloride made from a sodium + chlorine reaction, the two are chemically identical in every way. I'm not surprised, given the marketing towards organic stuff. but synthetically-derived chemicals.are purer and more predictable; 'natural' products are not.

Quite honestly, the 'Organic' industry is just selling a dream for the purpose of making money.

 

Going back to artificial wombs, it's rather hard for us swallow at this time but some decades in the future, society's mindset may well be different.

Edited May 19, 2015 by StringJunky

[Endy0816]

But a baby born inside a woman is natural because it was conceived via the natural process of sexual reproduction. Culturing egg and sperm and then injecting sperm into the egg culture to fertilize it is artificial because this wouldn't happen naturally. Nor would 1 organism carefully building a baby cell by cell.

 

It is still sexual reproduction. All that is concerned with is the sperm and the egg meeting. Doesn't matter how. Look at different species out there. Many simply release theirs en masse into the world at large.

 

Looking only at your genetics nobody would be able to tell you from one your 'artificial' people.

 

Major difference would lie in the environmental aspects of development. Initial immunity, food preferences, etc. Even that we could randomly vary or ideally prepare the next generation to specific issues/threats.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Endy0816

[kisai]

I am for artificial wombs, but then I'm also for the experimentation on the genetic code of human beings, which some may deem monstrous.