Sperm made from bone marrow

**zznɟ ǝɥʇ** · April 13, 2007, 05:18 PM

Sorry to post another topic about a BBC article.

However, this one is pretty ground breaking it seems.

Full article here.

Basically, scientists were able take cells from the bone marrow, and 'nudge' them to becoming sperm rather than what they were going to develop into.

Normally these stem cells from the bone marrow would develop into the different cell types in muscle tissue.

But the researchers induced a small number of them to develop into what appeared to be spermatagonial cells - cells found in the testes which would normally develop into mature sperm cells.

This is the first time human spermatagonial cells have been made artificially in this way.

I'm not sure how to react to this news. Apparently there is also a proposed law that would prohibit artificial sperm from being used in fertilization.

It's like man is creating life, more or less. Or rather, taking life already and transforming it to be something completely different.

**~~removeduser_426582376423734~~** · April 13, 2007, 05:20 PM

It's going according to plan.... MUAHAHAHAAAA!

**Beiss** · April 14, 2007, 05:39 AM

If they can make sperm from male bone marrow, the step to making sperm from female bone marrow can't be that big. Or egg cells from male bone marrow - in fact, that should be even easier. The question is what will come first - a child with two biological mothers and no biological father or one with two biological fathers and no biological mother...

**Cluny the Scourge** · April 14, 2007, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by Beiss

If they can make sperm from male bone marrow, the step to making sperm from female bone marrow can't be that big. Or egg cells from male bone marrow - in fact, that should be even easier. The question is what will come first - a child with two biological mothers and no biological father or one with two biological fathers and no biological mother...

And? So what? There's nothing wrong with that. The child's life, should the foetus be brought to term, would be of no different value than any other's.

I'm not sure how to react to this news.

There's no need for any reaction at all, except excitement at the extraordinary advances being made in medical technology with the power of stem cells.

Apparently there is also a proposed law that would prohibit artificial sperm from being used in fertilization.

That would be a very stupid, pointless, knee-jerk, dumb-assed law. I'm sick of blinkered, weak-minded Luddites who want to try to hold back the future just for its own sake.

It's like man is creating life, more or less.

Man creates life all the time. That's what we do - we're total studs. The babes - they just beg for more life to be created. Uh huh.

Or rather, taking life already and transforming it to be something completely different.

There would be no 'transformation' - they're human sperm cells. Big deal.

**green tea** · April 14, 2007, 10:03 AM

If you could find intact DNA from the older human kinds, you could recreate them! Perhaps you could inject the DNA also in the female cell. Interesting- and ethically entirely questionable, of course.

**zznɟ ǝɥʇ** · April 14, 2007, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by Cluny the Scourge

Man creates life all the time.

What's strange is we really don't create life. The sperm is already alive. We can thank a chemical reaction in the primordial ooze for life.

**Beiss** · April 14, 2007, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by Cluny the Scourge

And? So what? There's nothing wrong with that. The child's life, should the foetus be brought to term, would be of no different value than any other's.

... you're in a really bad mood today, aren't you?

I wasn't questioning the child's life's value at all. I just thought it was interesting. We could potentially nullify the need for male persons completely, ending up with a society of females only, where men are kept in zoos... if some of the more militant feminists have it their way.

**TheKwas** · April 15, 2007, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by Beiss

If they can make sperm from male bone marrow, the step to making sperm from female bone marrow can't be that big. Or egg cells from male bone marrow - in fact, that should be even easier. The question is what will come first - a child with two biological mothers and no biological father or one with two biological fathers and no biological mother...

Two fathers already have enough sperm. They need an male-made egg.

Also, they would have to make sure that they don't end up with some YY (no X) childern.

**LoZz** · April 21, 2007, 07:28 PM

i think we have to consider the moral implications of this, it could undermind the value of men and fathers in a society which does alot of that allready.

i mean, the anti male extreme feminists are starting to get alot of voice over the last few years, and my one happy thought was that i knew their man hateing genes would die with them, but now thanks to this they can continue, and also as its female bone marrow their is no chance of their being any Y cromosone so their would be no chance of a male child.

in diffrent times id welcome but i think this shouldnt be allowed untill we live in more just and tolerant times.

**Sheep** · April 22, 2007, 09:27 PM

Originally Posted by LoZz

i think we have to consider the moral implications of this, it could undermind the value of men and fathers in a society which does alot of that allready.

[...]

as its female bone marrow their is no chance of their being any Y cromosone so their would be no chance of a male child.

If all children are female than what is the value of men in society?

**LoZz** · April 23, 2007, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by Sheep

If all children are female than what is the value of men in society?

the fact that its the male who desides the sex of the child (otherwise they would be all female) makes no diffrence. in case you havent noticed thats how its ment to be, if nature had no purpose for men women would be able to produce asexualy.

men are/where the hunter gathers of human society if you back to our first ever steps, our basic instincts, hences why men are (generaly speaking) made to be physically strong.

obviously thats not so important now, but you could argue that as humanity will one day end whats the point in women ether

**Sheep** · April 23, 2007, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by LoZz

if nature had no purpose for men women would be able to produce asexualy.

Well now they will be able to reproduce asexually!

**numerosdecimus** · April 24, 2007, 03:24 PM

There is a prob with this.

Why do you think there a male and a female? It's also because of the genetic diversity offered through sexual reproduction. This method has the disadvantage of not bringing the genetic diversity required to prevent genetic deseases.

There are lots of genetic deseases, from Parkinson, to physical anomalies, cognitive/mental anomalies and especially low/horrible ovule and sperm quality and sexual impotence, such as the sperm cells having a underdeveloped and deformed tail, which makes them virtually useless.

Genetic deseases are the worst things you can get and if they become generalized through out the world pop then you have a serious problem.

Being sterile and sexually impotent are things I don't think any son wants to have as being the comsequence of a significant risk.

Sexual reproduction exists on order to secure a genetically healthy next generation.

**TheKwas** · April 22, 2007, 09:34 PM

Lesbians make up something like 3% of the overall population? I don't think the demographics will be shifted significantly by this.

**Sheep** · April 22, 2007, 09:40 PM

Originally Posted by TheKwas

Lesbians make up something like 3% of the overall population? I don't think the demographics will be shifted significantly by this.

Ding ding ding.

Also your sig rocks.

**TheKwas** · April 23, 2007, 05:30 PM

if nature had no purpose

This is your error. Nature has no purpose.

**Feliks** · April 24, 2007, 05:04 PM

I'm no great biologist, but I doubt two males could have their own biological child. Why? Because they both have XY chromosomes. In the pairing of XX (female) and XY (male) each parent "gives" one of their chromosomes. The mother will always give an X and the male can give either an X or Y. Thus a 50/50 chance of the offspring being male or female. For two women two sets of DNA with XX's will always result in females. However, two males (XY) would have a 25% of having offspring with XX (female), 50% of offspring with XY(male) but a 25% of offspring with two Y chromosomes. The problem? An X Chromosome is much larger than the Y and the Y actually carries little information. A YY individual would lack the information from the X chromosomes (it tells your body a lot more than just how to build lady parts). Now I'm not sure if that egg and sperm would merely fail to develop or if it would develop into some kind of severely misformed human. But regardless, the potential problems with two fathers is a great deal more than two mothers.