Scientists claim sperm 'first'

**Viking Prince** · July 08, 2009, 01:14 AM

Scientists in Newcastle claim to have created human sperm in the laboratory in what they say is a world first.
The researchers believe the work could eventually help men with fertility problems to conceive.

But other experts say they are not convinced that fully developed sperm have been created.

Writing in the journal Stem Cells and Development, the Newcastle team say it will be at least five years before the technique is perfected.

They began with stem cell lines derived from human embryos donated following IVF treatment.

The stem cells had been removed when the embryo was a few days old and were stored in tanks of liquid nitrogen.

full BBC article: Scientists claim sperm 'first'

also: Human sperm created from embryonic stem cells

**★Bandiera Rossa☭** · July 08, 2009, 01:17 AM

Very interesting my friend.. But is it a good thing? It could perhaps have many uses but what will the backlash be? Will the scientists working on this be targeted by religious groups and possibly assassinated?

**Pious Agnost** · July 08, 2009, 03:30 AM

This development is amazing, a testament to why stem cell research deserves and needs funding

Originally Posted by That White Guy

Very interesting my friend.. But is it a good thing? It could perhaps have many uses but what will the backlash be? Will the scientists working on this be targeted by religious groups and possibly assassinated?

While there is definitely going to be the usual "You're playing God!!11one" reactions, I don't think it will go to the extent of assassination.
This is technically creating life, rather than taking it (Abortion)

**Don in the North** · July 08, 2009, 03:21 AM

count on it. this will be branded a satanistic ritual, condemned and pestered at every chance.

**Phier** · July 08, 2009, 02:57 PM

Boy fathers day would be something special for a kid born with this sperm

**Playfishpaste** · July 08, 2009, 05:56 PM

Sperm was derived, not created here.

Still an awesome marvel. Still quite shocked reading it.

**roy34543** · July 08, 2009, 05:58 PM

It sounds pretty cool actually. you could definatly control human populations with this kind of discovery.

**Phier** · July 08, 2009, 07:53 PM

Originally Posted by roy34543

It sounds pretty cool actually. you could definatly control human populations with this kind of discovery.

How?

**C-Rob** · July 08, 2009, 08:39 PM

as the words of peter griffin go- "why are we not funding this?"

But I can understand how people will get all bent out of shape with this development, though why... as if it cheapens the sanctity of human life or something, as if that's even important... i dunno.

**Pious Agnost** · July 11, 2009, 05:29 AM

Originally Posted by C-Rob

as the words of peter griffin go- "why are we not funding this?"

Same

**roy34543** · July 08, 2009, 08:40 PM

How?

Just make sure that males cant reproduce and just do it artificially.

**Phier** · July 08, 2009, 09:27 PM

Originally Posted by roy34543

Just make sure that males cant reproduce and just do it artificially.

And people wonder why some people think funding this sort of thing is a problem

**Romanos** · July 09, 2009, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by roy34543

Just make sure that males cant reproduce and just do it artificially.

Sounds way too Brave New World for me.

**Viking Prince** · July 10, 2009, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by Romanos

Sounds way too Brave New World for me.

My very thought when I posted this. Then, if males are only good to provide sperm....

I think there are values to each sex in adition to procreation capacity. We approach problems a bit differantly. We socialize differantly. Males have physical strengths that can be of advantage in certain situations. If we as males are not needed to reproduce, I think we will still be needed.

**Phier** · July 10, 2009, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by Viking Prince

My very thought when I posted this. Then, if males are only good to provide sperm....

I think there are values to each sex in adition to procreation capacity. We approach problems a bit differantly. We socialize differantly. Males have physical strengths that can be of advantage in certain situations. If we as males are not needed to reproduce, I think we will still be needed.

Of course males are needed to reproduce, in this case the male is a dead embryo, the experiment didn't work with female stemcells.

An artificial womb would be trickier, but odds are we would go the clone surrogate route for that. Then we wouldn't need females.

**~~Caduet~~** · July 09, 2009, 05:37 PM

Sounds like a feminazi plot to me. We should do everything in our power to halt research on this and prevent males from becoming superfluous.

Roy, this seems like the opposite of population control.