logo
Could stem cells be used to create life without sperm or egg? Not yet, but here's why scientists are concerned

Could stem cells be used to create life without sperm or egg? Not yet, but here's why scientists are concerned

CNN3 days ago
Scientists are exploring ways to mimic the origins of human life without two fundamental components: sperm and egg.
They are coaxing clusters of stem cells – programmable cells that can transform into many different specialized cell types – to form laboratory-grown structures that resemble human embryos.
These embryo models are far from perfect replicas. But as labs compete to grow the best likeness, the structures are becoming increasingly complex, looking and behaving in some way as embryos would.
The structures could further the study of human development and the causes infertility. However, the dizzying pace of the research, which started little more than a decade ago, is posing ethical, legal and regulatory challenges for the field of developmental biology.
'We could have never anticipated the science would have just progressed like this. It's incredible, it's been transformative how quickly the field has moved, said Amander Clark, a professor of molecular cell and developmental biology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and the founding director of the UCLA Center for Reproductive Science, Health and Education. 'However, as these models advance, it is crucial that they are studied in a framework that balances scientific progress with ethical, legal and social considerations.'
Clark is co-chair of the International Society of Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) Embryo Models Working Group, which is now trying to update such a framework on a global scale. At issue is the question of how far researchers could go with these stem cells, given time and the right conditions. Could scientists eventually replicate an actual embryo that has a heartbeat and experiences pain, or one that could grow into a fully developed human model?
As current research stands, no model mimics the development of a human embryo in its entirety — nor is any model suspected of having the potential to form a fetus, the next stage in human development equivalent to week 8 or day 56 in a human pregnancy. Creating embryo models has also been a hit-and-miss process for most research groups, with only a small percentage of stem cells going on to self-organize into embryo-like structures.
However, the models do exhibit several internal features and cell types that an embryo needs to develop, such as the amnion, yolk sac and primitive streak, and that could, 'with future improvements, eventually progress toward later embryo structures including heart, brain, and other organ rudiments,' according to a June paper coauthored by Clark and published in the journal Stem Cell Reports. Similar models made with mouse cells have reached the point where the brain begins to develop and a heart forms.
Nobel laureate Jennifer Doudna tells Fareed about her path to becoming a leading scientist and explains how her discovery of CRISPR can help cure diseases and improve crops. Critically, the goal isn't to develop these models into viable fetuses, ultimately capable of human sentience, but to develop a useful research tool that unlocks the mysteries of how a human cell divides and reproduces to become a human body. The models also make way for experiments that can't be performed on donated embryos in a lab. However, it's possible as research advances that the distinction between a lab-grown model and a living human embryo could become blurred.
And because the models lie at the intersection of historically controversial fields — stem cell biology and embryology — the work merits closer oversight than other forms of scientific research, Clark said.
Clark and the ISSCR's Embryo Models Working Group in June recommended enhanced oversight of research involving the models. The society's guidelines, which first included guidance on embryo models in 2021, are being revised to incorporate the recommendations of the group and will be released in a few weeks.
The current ISSCR guidelines make a distinction between 'integrated embryo models' that replicate the entire embryo, and 'non-integrated models' that replicate just one part of an embryo, requiring stricter oversight of the former. The updated guidelines will instead recommend that all research involving both types of embryo models should undergo 'appropriate ethical and scientific review.'
The proposed update will also set out two red lines: The current guidance already prohibits the transfer of human embryo models into a human or animal uterus. The updated version will also advise scientists not use human embryo models to pursue ectogenesis: the development of an embryo outside the human body via the use of artificial wombs — essentially creating life from scratch.
According to Clark, the stem cell-based embryo models she and other research teams work on should be considered distinct from research on actual human embryos, usually surplus IVF embryos donated to science. Such research is tightly regulated in many countries, and banned in others, including Germany, Austria and Italy.
It makes sense, at least for now, to treat models and real embryos differently, said Emma Cave, a professor of healthcare law at Durham University in the UK who works on embryo models. She uses diamonds as an analogy: Natural diamonds and their commercially lab-grown equivalents are made from the same chemical components, but society assigns them different values. She cautioned there shouldn't be a rush to regulate embryo models too quickly in case it shuts down promising research.
'We are at an early stage in their development, where it could be that in 5, 10, 15, 20 years, that they could look very like a human embryo, or it might be they never get to that stage,' she said.
As the scientific research unfolds, oversight of embryo models is taking different shapes in different jurisdictions. Australia has taken the strictest approach. It includes embryo models within the regulatory framework that governs the use of human embryos, requiring a special permit for research.
The Netherlands in 2023 similarly proposed treating 'non-conventional embryos' the same as human embryos in the eyes of the law. The proposal is still under discussion, according to the Health Council of the Netherlands.
Researchers in the United Kingdom released a voluntary code of conduct in 2024, and Japan has also issued new guidelines governing research in the field.
In the United States, embryo models aren't covered by any specific legal framework, and research proposals are considered by individual institutions and funding bodies, Clark noted. The National Institutes of Health said in 2021 that it would consider applications for public funding of research into embryo models on a case-by-case basis and monitor developments to understand the capabilities of these models.
Few other countries, however, appear poised to adopt specific legislation on embryo models, making the guidelines issued by the ISSCR a 'highly influential' reference for researchers around the world, according to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, a London-based organization that advises on ethical issues in biomedicine.
The council said in a November 2024 report that international guidelines were key to avoid 'research being carried out that does not meet high ethical and scientific standards; this in turn could impact on the national public perception of risk, leading to a more risk-averse approach that hinders responsible scientific development.'
Clark said the ISSCR's updated voluntary guidelines would help scientific funding bodies around the world better evaluate applications and publishers of research understand whether work was performed in an ethically responsible way, particularly in places where the law or other guidelines don't take embryo models into account.
The future challenge for regulators is to understand when and whether an embryo model would be functionally the same as a human embryo and therefore potentially afforded the same or similar protection as those surrounding human embryos, said Naomi Moris, group leader at The Francis Crick Institute's developmental models laboratory. The only definitive test would be to transfer the model into the uterus of a surrogate, a move that's forbidden by current bioethical standards.
However, Moris is among a group of researchers that has proposed to two tipping points or 'Turing tests' — inspired by computer scientist Alan Turing's way of determining whether machines can think like humans — to evaluate when distinctions between a lab-gown model and a human embryo would disappear.
'These things are not embryos at the moment, they clearly don't have the same capacity as an embryo does. But how would we know ahead of time that we were approaching that?' Moris said. 'That was the logic behind it. What metrics would we use as a kind of proxy for the potential of an embryo model that might then suggest that it was at least approaching the same sorts of equivalency as an embryo.'
The first test would measure whether the models can be consistently produced and faithfully develop over a given period as normal embryos would. The second test would assess when animal stem cell embryo models — particularly animals closest to humans such as monkeys — show the potential to form living and fertile animals when transferred into surrogate animal wombs, thus suggesting that the same outcome would in theory be possible for human embryo models.
That hasn't happened yet, but Chinese researchers in 2023 created embryo models from the stem cells of macaque monkeys that when implanted in a surrogate monkey triggered signs of early pregnancy.
Proponents of the technology say the models offer an equally, and possibly more, useful, ethical alternative to research on scarce and precious human embryos. The models have the potential to be produced at scale in a lab to screen drugs for embryo toxicology, a impactful application given that pregnant women have often been excluded from drug trials because of safety concerns.
Yet, the potential for these models to be used in the creation of life has been cause for worry among bioethicists. 'There are commercial and other groups raising the possibility of building an embryo in vitro and combining different bioengineering approaches to bring such an entity to viability,' according to the June paper coauthored by Clark and other members of the ISSCR's embryo model working group.
'Currently the practice of bringing an SCBEM (stem cell-based embryo model) to viability is considered unsafe and unethical and should not be pursued,' the study noted.
Cave said ectogenesis may sound like the realm of science fiction, but it isn't impossible. As embryo models continue to be developed, and separate research is advancing into artificial wombs, the two technologies could meet, Cave said.
The challenge, she added, is recognizing the value of these research paths but at the same time preventing misuse.
Jun Wu, an associate professor at the Department of Molecular Biology at the University of Texas Southwestern is one of a number of stem cell biologists involved in the field. He agreed that ectogenesis should be off the table but explained that researchers developing embryo models must engage in a delicate dance: To the unlock the mysteries of the human embryo, models have to resemble embryos closely enough to offer real insight but they must not resemble them so closely that they risk being viewed as viable.
Magdalena Zernicka-Geotz, the Bren professor of biology and biological engineering at Caltech, said she welcomed the new guidelines.
She announced in 2023 that her team had succeeded in a world first: growing embryo-like models to a stage resembling 14-day-old embryos. Later the same year, Jacob Hanna, a professor of stem cell biology and embryology at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel, said his team had gone a step further with a model derived from skin cells that showed all the cell types that are essential for an embryo's development — including the precursor of the placenta.
Together the work represented a breakthrough for the models' potential use in research on pregnancy loss: At 14 days the human embryo has begun to attach to the lining of the uterus, a process known as implantation. Many miscarriages occur around this stage, Zernicka-Geotz said.
Lab research on human embryos beyond 14 days, including those donated from IVF treatments, is prohibited in most jurisdictions. And while some scientists do study tissue obtained from abortions, such tissue is limited because few procedures take place between week 2 and week 4 of an embryo's development.
The ability to grow an embryo model outside of a womb at this developmental stage paves the way for studies that are not possible in living human embryos.
'Far more pregnancies fail than succeed during the critical window just before, during and immediately after implantation. This is why we created in my lab the embryo-like structures from stem cells as a way to really understand this critical and so highly fragile stage of development,' Zernicka-Goetz said.
Clark agreed that embryo models could potentially be used to address infertility problems: 'Implantation. It's the big black box. Once the embryo implants in the uterus, we understand very little about the development,' Clark added.
'And if we can't study it, we don't know what we're missing.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Novel Access Model For Sickle Cell Disease Gene Therapy Could Be Template
Novel Access Model For Sickle Cell Disease Gene Therapy Could Be Template

Forbes

time26 minutes ago

  • Forbes

Novel Access Model For Sickle Cell Disease Gene Therapy Could Be Template

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced in July that 33 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico will join a new voluntary program intended to improve patient access to and lower costs for gene therapies targeting sickle cell disease. This was a Biden administration initiative, which the Trump administration decided to continue to implement. It ties payment for two novel gene therapies to positive clinical outcomes. This could make such treatments that cost millions be more widely accessible for patients. And if successful, it may serve as a template for future cell and gene therapy agreements. Medicaid, the joint federal and state program that provides health coverage to low-income individuals, is the main insurer for SCD patients. The Biden administration announced last year that the manufacturers of Lyfgenia and Casgevy had entered into agreements with CMS to participate in the Cell and Gene Therapy Access Model, which allows CMS to negotiate outcomes-based agreements on behalf of state Medicaid programs for cell and gene therapies, beginning with sickle cell disease treatments. Essentially this means that CMS will reimburse based on whether certain agreed-upon clinical thresholds are reached in patients. According to CMS, the participating states in the newly established access initiative represent about 84% of Medicaid beneficiaries with SCD. The program could contribute towards a sizable expansion of access to potentially transformative care in the form of two extraordinarily expensive gene therapies. The launch prices for Casgevy (exagamglogene autotemcel) and Lyfgenia (lovotibeglogene autotemcel) were $2.2 million and $3.1 million, respectively. SCD is a group of congenital red blood cell disorders, named sickle cell for their crescent shape. The condition affects millions of people worldwide. In the United States, approximately 100,000 individuals are living with the disease, which predominantly impacts people of sub-Saharan African descent. The disease alters the structure of hemoglobin, the molecule in red blood cells that delivers oxygen to organs and tissue throughout the body. As a consequence, this causes severe pain, anemia, organ damage and infections. Individuals with the disease have a shorter life expectancy, by more than 20 years on average. The most common sickle cell disorder type is sickle cell anemia. Besides pain medications to relieve symptoms as well as antibiotics to treat infections, hydroxyurea—a bone marrow suppressive agent that decreases red blood cell production—can be used to reduce the frequency of painful episodes. It has been in use since the 1980s. The Food and Drug Administration has approved several new therapeutics in the past ten years, but none are as promising as Lyfgenia and Casgevy. These two novel therapies can decrease or potentially eliminate pain crises in patients. Gene therapies such as Lyfgenia and Casgevy are administered in an inpatient hospital setting but are considered covered outpatient drugs because they're directly reimbursed and subject to standard, federally mandated Medicaid rebates. Manufacturers of the two treatments must also provide states with supplemental rebates (post-hoc discounts off of the list price) reflecting model-negotiated terms. In turn, states are obligated to implement an agreed-upon access policy for patients. According to CMS, there is also optional federal support of up to $9.55 million per state available to help with implementation of the arrangements, outreach and data tracking. In the cell and gene therapy space, science has generally outpaced commercialization. Access to very costly treatments is a challenge. Whether in the public or commercial sector, payers must find novel ways of paying for cell and gene therapies while generating evidence with respect to their real-world effectiveness and safety. Questions insurers must find answers to include: What are the health outcomes for patients in real-world settings? Do treatments fulfill the promise of a one-time cure for certain serious illnesses or disorders? Are there particular safety concerns that appear in real-world settings? Are side effects manageable? Coordinating evidence gathering as well as contracts across state Medicaid agencies is likely to yield a more efficient process while improving access for a substantial majority of SCD sufferers nationwide. It's not just SCD gene therapies that confront a formidable set of barriers to access. All cell and gene therapy manufacturers face a challenging environment. The regulatory hurdles are enormous to begin with, but manufacturing challenges following approval are considerable, too. Furthermore, patient preparation, side effect and adverse event profiles can be intolerable. This can deter patients from signing up to initiate treatment. On top of all of this, payers concerned about the high per unit costs often impose coverage restrictions, as the Tufts Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health describes. Nonetheless, gene therapies in particular hold the promise of delivering groundbreaking improvements in health outcomes across multiple disease areas. Therefore, overcoming obstacles to optimal patient access is crucial. If successful, the SCD model being experimented with could serve as a blueprint for other cell and gene therapies that have faced considerable barriers with respect to patient access.

Check Your Kitchen—Experts Say These 10 Foods Contain The Most Microplastics
Check Your Kitchen—Experts Say These 10 Foods Contain The Most Microplastics

Yahoo

time42 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Check Your Kitchen—Experts Say These 10 Foods Contain The Most Microplastics

"Hearst Magazines and Yahoo may earn commission or revenue on some items through these links." Microplastics are found in many everyday foods like rice, tea, bottled water, and seafood. Early research suggests microplastics may contribute to health issues like oxidative stress, organ dysfunction, and metabolic or immune disruptions, though more studies are needed. Experts recommend reducing exposure by choosing loose-leaf tea, rinsing rice, avoiding plastic bottles, and opting for minimally processed or non-plastic-packaged foods. Almost everything we eat these days is transported or stored in plastic, and we've all zapped leftovers in the microwave in plastic containers. But you may not have realized that microplastics actually can be found inside the foods we eat. It's actually not a new topic. "Research into the effects of microplastic consumption has been ongoing for several decades," says Stephani Johnson, D.C.N., R.D.N., adjunct professor, Department of Clinical and Preventive Nutrition Sciences at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. "However, there is still much to learn regarding the average levels of human exposure, how long microplastics remain in the body, and their associated health consequences. What is currently known is that microplastics are ubiquitous in the environment, making complete avoidance virtually impossible." Studies have found microplastics throughout the human body, including in the brain, heart, colon, placenta, and more. "We are what we eat, and we are eating and being exposed to plastics in our food," Nicholas Mallos, vice president of conservation, ocean plastics, at the Ocean Conservancy, and co-author of a recent study on microplastics in commonly-consumed proteins. "While we need more research to know what exposure levels of plastics are causing human health problems, we should be concerned." What Are The Health Consequences Of Consuming Microplastics? Emerging evidence suggests that potential harm may depend on several factors, including the amount consumed, as well as the type, size, and shape of the microplastic particles. "At the cellular level, studies have shown that microplastics can contribute to oxidative stress, DNA damage, organ dysfunction, and disruptions in metabolic, reproductive, and immune functions, as well as neurodevelopmental toxicity," Johnson says. Unfortunately, there is still much we don't know about microplastics in food. "Our study demonstrates the need for further research to better understand microplastics in the most commonly consumed foods, including precisely where these microplastics are coming from and the potential human health risks," Mallos says. Ahead, the foods that research has found to contain a measurable amount of microplastics: Tea Many commercial tea bags are made with polypropylene, a type of plastic used to seal the bags and maintain their shape. "When steeped in hot water, these bags can release microplastics into the tea. To avoid potential ingestion of microplastics, using loose leaf tea with a stainless steel or other non-plastic tea infuser is a safer and more sustainable alternative," Johnson says. Rice "Studies have shown that rice can contain relatively high levels of microplastics, likely due to contamination of soil and irrigation water," Johnson says. Rinsing rice thoroughly before cooking has been found to reduce its microplastic content by approximately 20–40%. Ultra-Processed Foods There's evidence that food processing is a likely source of microplastic contamination. Research has found that highly-processed protein products, such as chicken nuggets, tofu, and plant-based burgers, contain significantly more microplastics per gram than minimally processed products, such as wild Alaska pollock and raw chicken breast, Mallos says. Bottled Water When exposed to heat—such as being left in a hot car—or subjected to physical stress, like squeezing, plastic water bottles can release microplastics into the water. "Among various types, single-use plastic bottles tend to release the highest amounts of microplastics, followed by reusable plastic bottles," Johnson says. "In contrast, stainless steel and glass bottles do not degrade or leach microplastics, making them a safer and more sustainable choice for drinking water." Salt Believe it or not, even salt—a naturally occurring mineral—isn't safe from microplastics. Research has found that salt can contain large amounts of microplastics, reflecting the broader problem of environmental pollution. Himalayan pink salt contains the greatest amounts, followed by black salt and sea salt, Johnson says. Fruits & Vegetables "Due to widespread environmental contamination, fruits and vegetables can contain measurable amounts of microplastics," Johnson says. Some types of produce are more susceptible than others, like root vegetables (such as carrots, potatoes, and beets), because they absorb microplastics from contaminated soil and rainwater through their root systems. But all types of plants can absorb microplastics through their roots. Honey Even honey may be contaminated by microplastics, which is also a concern due to widespread environmental contamination, Johnson says. Plant-Based Foods In the study co-authored by Mallos, microplastic particles were found in tofu, plant-based nuggets, plant-based fish sticks, and plant-based ground beef. Fresh Seafood Microplastics in the ocean accumulate in fish and shellfish, ultimately impacting humans, who consume seafood containing these particles, Johnson says. Bottom-feeding species, such as clams, mussels, oysters, catfish, halibut, flounder, and cod, tend to have higher concentrations of microplastics compared to other marine organisms. Processed Seafood Processed seafood fares no better. Research shows breaded shrimp, pollock fish sticks, and shrimp also contain microplastics, Mallos says. You Might Also Like Insanely Easy Weeknight Dinners To Try This Week 29 Insanely Delicious Vodka Cocktails Solve the daily Crossword

SpaceX delivers four astronauts to the International Space Station just 15 hours after launch
SpaceX delivers four astronauts to the International Space Station just 15 hours after launch

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

SpaceX delivers four astronauts to the International Space Station just 15 hours after launch

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) — SpaceX delivered a fresh crew to the International Space Station on Saturday, making the trip in a quick 15 hours. The four U.S., Russian and Japanese astronauts pulled up in their SpaceX capsule after launching from NASA's Kennedy Space Center. They will spend at least six months at the orbiting lab, swapping places with colleagues up there since March. SpaceX will bring those four back as early as Wednesday. Moving in are NASA's Zena Cardman and Mike Fincke, Japan's Kimiya Yui and Russia's Oleg Platonov — each of whom had been originally assigned to other missions. Cardman and another astronaut were pulled from a SpaceX flight last year to make room for NASA's two stuck astronauts, Boeing Starliner test pilots Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams, whose space station stay went from one week to more than nine months. Fincke and Yui had been training for the next Starliner mission. But with Starliner grounded by thruster and other problems until 2026, the two switched to SpaceX. Platonov was bumped from the Soyuz launch lineup a couple of years ago because of an undisclosed illness. Their arrival temporarily puts the space station population at 11. While their taxi flight was speedy by U.S. standards, the Russians hold the record for the fastest trip to the space station — a lightning-fast three hours. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Solve the daily Crossword

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store