Making babies without eggs may be possible, say scientists

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

I apologize, no spoiler the synopsis of the film from my perspective is.

Humans play God, and however you'd like to paint the reason (many could be given), the movie is about women becoming infertile. It is a science fiction, but one to take with great bearing in the day we live. While that may not be the narrative that unfolds, if you are cognizant enough to be open minded to science, may you also understand the ramifications of moving to fast without isolating variables.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Thanks for the clarification.

Did watching that movie change the attitude you would take in regards to the OP as if you hadn't seen it?

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

It's taking in all the external knowledge that changes one. It's taking a balance of science, facts, and the way art can put those into perspective that makes us understand the ramifications of the OP. I am no scientist, so I rely on ATS, my sources, and perception of art to articulate the world I live in and fear (for others, I'm fine with it)

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Ah seeing the ramifications for others despite having no fear of it oneself is a very good quality to have and develop... very difficult but extremely rewarding I can assure you.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

It's not hard, it's realism. It's not glorified, I am on no horse higher than any. I often envy people who choose not to see these topics despite their obvious intellect. I envy more than them, those who cannot see. Womp womp, and I'm not right, let the record show. I just desire to search always knowing I'll never be better than any other human. The chaos is what makes us perfect. Hemogony would only create the frog in slowly heating water analogy. It is our diversity and extremes that balances us. May diversity save us.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Thank you for the very personal clarification and even confession of envy over such things as turning a blind eye... of course that seems to be the curse of knowing exactly the solution and problem being the perpetuation of ignorance and not growth all at once.

I admit I felt the same thing... I didn't think of it as envy honestly it was just the feeling of maybe if I looked away my suffering or actually empathy towards it would decrease... but then again what would that solve? That's the same thing the ego constantly does... go into self protection mode, and then rationalizes why it is correct forming into a cognitive dissonance into a lalala I'm not listen fashion and well that obviously is exactly what we try so hard to escape from in removing hate, greed and ignorance to begin with... so diving right back into it? Better to use compassion and empathy than to turn a blind eye in the if I stick my head in the sand the world of it ceases to exist... yes indeed relative to the observer but not to the actual thing occurring.

Of course nothing wrong with bubbling up to regain strength and renew ones commitment to shedding light and trying to help over come such matters... eventually with practice there's no need for any bubbles of protection or to draw energy as the intent to help eventually comes back the same care and concern you give to also aid and shed light comes back... the reasoning? You are not alone... so of course when you share that positive energy in wanting to try and change things for the better and helping and aiding when and where you can it does not go un-noticed the others seen and unseen that do the same will help sending positive energy your way... so of course be sure to repay the kindness by also giving them energy.

Just as have you have with myself with pure honesty in sharing what you saw as suffering to oneself and swallowing what one would call pride or shame in not admitting what many call a fault in such a manner I am sending you as much positive energy as I can to have strength in your efforts and I hope others do the same... so that evolves as boundless energy to keep up the good fight as it is often called.

I hope sharing my experience in showing you that you are not alone has helped restore some of that vigor and encourage you no matter what happens? Keep going keep striving. The right thing never ceases being the right thing.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

For the record, that was inspiring and moving. And to the OP, may we all use our energy to help the world, progressively, and conservatively. To better the world all of us will share, including our children. To be open minded is not to devote to one closed minded way of thinking, but to inherit the wealth of knowledge the newfound Renaissance offers.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I have several records do you have a player? I do not but hey there's the possibility for that in the future but I m not suffering over it though the records might be. :p

I am looking forward to the shedding as much dogma of confusion as possible for the unity to come as well.

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
BBC Article

The "may be possible" means in humans not in mice or other organisms in which they have already done this.

First they don't know yet if it's even possible in mice: so far they have used an unfertilised egg and with added chemicals it became a "fake" embryo. Because those fake embryos they created share common traits with common cells, they believe any cell can end up being a fake embryo and thus being fertilized by sperm. In conclusion: so far they are only assuming and we don't know yet if it's feasible or if it belongs in the realm of science fiction.

Here is the original study: Mice produced by mitotic reprogramming of sperm injected into haploid parthenogenotes

Second, as another poster have already said, what works with mice doesn't necessarily translate as 'works with humans'. In fact most don't. LINK

a reply to: Agartha

The article states that it works 1 out of the 4 times implemented... meaning the very same practice is what "may be" possible in humans as it has worked in the mice. The fail rate is not that good so obviously the procedure need tweaking for a better success rate especially if it goes into human trails at some point.

It is very promising to help recover species that are on the verge of extinction however... and of course being an artificial egg and of course the a typical of over abundance of sperm cells then there is really little loss or moral ethic or otherwise in implementation of such things... as nature sheds them constantly itself without any propagation of a species.

Of course saying it is toying with creation or "gods" work then better cease anything and everything ever made not from nature asap if that is someone's belief... of course being nature ourselves no matter how much we twist other nature by whatever process I seriously don't see how anything we do is ever considered to be "un-natural".

Very first line of article:

They have succeeded in creating healthy baby mice by tricking sperm into believing they were fertilising normal eggs.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

I understand what you are saying but they haven't created embryos without eggs yet: in their studies they used unfertilized eggs and they theorize they may be able to do so with any type of cell. With mice.

If they are successful with any cell and mice they can then move on with humans. We are talking years and years of research here. And even though mice have been beneficial to our medical advancements, there are also major differences between them and us, which means success with mice doesn't necessarily translate as success with humans.

To be honest with you I am ethically torn with this idea: I understand it may help save species that are going extinct, but they should do something about those species now whilst they are still here on this planet. And I also wonder if scientists would be allowed to toy in such way with human cells and possible human embryos.

a reply to: Agartha

Are we even reading the same article?

I have dishes to do... but for re-iteration of what the article stated... they were able to trick sperm into fertilizing an artificial "EGG" so I have no idea where you are getting an "embryo" as hey work as been accomplished.

Impregnating an embryo with a sperm and an egg so it too is pregnant before birth is going a bit too far in studies in my personal opinion... talk about inception of conception that's it.

Ok I'm out for this evening take care.

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
Are we even reading the same article?

I'm wondering that too.....

The article you posted has not shown we can create motherless babies. They used an egg. They are just making lots of wild theories about futuristic ways of avoiding the 'egg+sperm' way, but they are just ideas.

If you re-read their study you will see that they used chemicals to make an unfertilized egg divide. The unfertilized egg is the biggest clue that there was a mother involved.

Scientists are still nowhere close to create life without the traditional egg+sperm original way. It's very clear in the study.

a reply to: Agartha

That's not what the article is even about and not what I was suggesting at all... the artificial egg is the topic and that they have tricked sperm into fertilizing the artificial egg then of course it is implanted into a host womb to give birth. Even clones require this.

Artificial wombs were never even a topic of discussion until you brought it up... although that is a likely possibility in the future that isn't what this article is about.

But of course a welcome discussion if you would like to do so, as it really isn't off topic as it falls under the same sort of research that is more than likely under current research...

That would require an artificial womb to be able to allow the cells to divide until it formed an umbilical the umbilical of course would have to feed the developing embryo through that artificial womb and of course the suspension fluid in a cycle the fluid in the amniotic sack is the developing embryos own waste from being fed directly through the umbilical.

So could we mimic this process? Highly likely... of course it is only a matter of working out methods to do so and well, hopefully the success rate would equal or better that of natural in order to make it ethically or morally on par with the natural process in giving birth.

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness

That's not what the article is even about and not what I was suggesting at all... the artificial egg is the topic

There is no artificial egg. They used real egg cells, the difference was that the egg was unfertilized and divided by mitosis and not after insemination.

Artificial wombs were never even a topic of discussion until you brought it up...

Lol I've never mentioned artificial wombs...... I have no idea what you are talking about, sorry.

Here is the original study which the BBC article in your OP is about: Mice produced by mitotic reprogramming of sperm injected into haploid parthenogenotes

It's better to read the original study instead of news sites articles written by journalists who don't understand real science and end up changing the whole meaning.

In the study scientists used real egg cells from a mouse, added chemicals and made it divide by mitosis until it became a haploid embryo (an embryo created without fertilization). In the past haploid embryos died after a few days as they lacked the necessary developmental processes only sperm could give them.

In this experiment scientists added sperm to the haploid embryo and 24% of those embryos became healthy baby mice, when the chances of that before were 0%. That's all. Nowhere in the study it suggests they could use skin cell or any other type of cells to make babies. That's just journalists adding science fiction to real science.

a reply to: Agartha

Yes John Oliver you are quite right...

A quality thread means really studying the topic in depth so that any single thing that arises can be met with the utmost knowledge of the subject.

A cell from an egg is still an egg just like chopping up a boiled one does not make that piece over here not egg. So yes I see what you mean.

Thank you.

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a reply to: Agartha

Yes John Oliver you are quite right...

A quality thread means really studying the topic in depth so that any single thing that arises can be met with the utmost knowledge of the subject.

A cell from an egg is still an egg just like chopping up a boiled one does not make that piece over here not egg. So yes I see what you mean.

Thank you.

John Oliver? hahaha hopefully I look a bit less masculine.

Your thread is fine, an excellent topic for discussion however, we need to do so with the real science, not the science fiction most news sites post.... unless the thread is in skunk.

a reply to: Agartha

It was in reference to this...



Even though I know better than to just flap it out there there's this phenomena of eh this is interesting lets discuss it... admittedly, I was more interested in the ramifications mentioned in my commentary than the article itself in which this direction of science can be used than really digging into the topic of the science and research itself to see where they actually are...

Even though, you provided the links to that my lack of interest in the details led to a glossing... as I want to see the results in use that is way off down the road not the process that isn't quite there yet.

My apologies for being that child in the back seat of this field kicking the seat going are we there yet, are we there yet, are we there yet... despite you kindly saying "No." more than once.

Better than testing your patience yes? Cause that would be a troll in that car seat smiling away with each kick :p