In the current society, the creation of new lives gains significant attention since it's often linked to a population's growth potential and future development. Currently, for many countries, decreasing birth rates have become an essential concern with the increasing size of the aging population. Among all the root causes of this challenge, infertility has been a significant issue that has resulted in lower birth rates globally and has motivated the creation of various scientific techniques that aim to create new lives. In vitro gametogenesis (IVG) was proposed and developed to produce babies in an unconventional way. With this technology, pluripotent stem cells induced from somatic cells sourced from all parts of the human body can be used to construct embryos, eggs, and sperm. In theory, the application of this method can address a variety of societal needs, as giving birth to a baby no longer relies on the human reproduction system. Couples and individuals of all genders and ages will have the ability to have a child by simply harvesting a piece of their body tissue. Even though some people advocate for IVG because of its potential to address societal challenges, the ethical concerns, technical risks, and regulatory challenges involved outweigh the positives. 

First of all, IVG introduces moral concerns because of the ease of harvesting parental tissue specimens. If the technical procedure becomes deskilled and streamlined, the process of creating new lives can be commercialized with minimal effort, changing the meaning of life. The process of IVG involves creating gametes from human somatic cells, a highly repeatable procedure that uses vastly available human cell samples as ingredients. IVG’s potential to rapidly and cheaply generate multiple embryos could reignite age-old concerns about “embryo farming” and the commodification of human reproduction (“In Vitro Gametogenesis”). Commodifying life leads to an ethical concern that life can be bought with money (Rothman). Furthermore, IVG, if not strictly regulated, will lead to problems associated with positive eugenics. Through the process of IVG, people will be able to handpick the sperm or egg source for their children. Some people may choose certain elite genes, such as a high IQ or preferable traits of appearance, and try to make their embryo a “perfect baby”. In this way, IVG enables the parents to customize the genetic “ingredients” for their final “product”. This selection process defies the traditional process of fertilization and natural development and may contribute to more child abandonment issues since the barrier to a “reselection” is so low. The idea of selecting favorable genes may lead to serious ethical issues, such as inequality, as allowing parents to choose genes for their children can give them unfair advantages over those who cannot afford the cost of genetic selection. If more people choose to select genes and make perfect babies, the diversity of society will decrease, along with the tolerance for “imperfect babies” (Caplan et al.). Even though some may claim that inequalities already exist, as many in society have social and economic advantages, new biological inequalities should be banned to prevent the world from intensifying existing social stratification and economic divides. In order to protect the traditional meaning of lives and prevent babies from becoming products, we shouldn’t move forward with IVG further. 

The proponents of IVG claim that under the appropriate regulation and legislation, this technology can be used for people to have kids more conveniently, even reducing some of the painful procedures involved in the already common in vitro fertilization (IVF) method (Overfelt). However, a deep investigation of the IVG method will reveal that regulating the harness of human tissue for legal IVG is near impossible. Because the method allows users to preserve genes and create new lives from a single cell that could be easily found, such as clippings of hair or a small piece of skin, every individual’s genetic data will be publicly accessible through basic level in-person contact. Admittedly, the harnessing process is convenient for actual users with ethical intentions; however, those cells can be found everywhere. People can steal DNA from others to make babies simply from a strand of hair found on a seat they were in or a toothpick they discarded on the dinner table, where unethical collections of these mundane items can lead to serious consequences. Anyone’s DNA might be stolen and used to create babies without their consent, resulting in these individuals becoming biological parents without any knowledge or rights to the child’s existence. Additionally, the convenience of creating new lives by easily accessible single cells raises a long list of other provocative possibilities, including “90-year-old genetic mothers, 9-year-old genetic mothers, 9-month-old fetuses becoming genetic parents, and even people who have been dead for three years whose cells were saved" (Stein). Similarly, children created in this way may never find out who their true parents are and what is their biological heritage. Even though legal policies could be developed to ban people from these actions, if the societal need is high enough and the crime is so straightforward, the illegal collection of human samples cannot be eradicated, and legislation might even contribute to the development of “DNA black markets”. To avoid tapping into these uncharted territories throughout human history, we should not move forward with IVG before ensuring effective regulations can be in place. 

Moreover, the development of IVG may raise long-term genetic and health risks unknown to human medicine. The unique ways of creating lives through simple cells create new risks that should be carefully investigated to evaluate all aspects of the baby’s long-term health outcomes. The skin cell’s nucleus was observed to segregate its chromosomes each time it was implanted in the donor egg, a process that rarely happened perfectly (“In Vitro Gametogenesis”). The incomplete segregation could lead to unhealthy offspring with congenital diseases or even malformation. Think about the bigger picture: if those unhealthy babies become adults and reproduce, the IVG incident that caused the genetic flaws can contaminate the human gene pool with an exponential effect caused by generations of offspring. The consequences will be immeasurable, with a large amount population carrying congenital diseases and functional disorders. Even if thorough screenings of chromosome segregations can be enforced, there may still be potential diseases and symptoms developed in the later stages of the individual’s life, just like how IVF babies can pass all the neonatal exams but still prone to peripartum diseases (von Wolff and Haaf).

The new technology will bring about new challenges and unknown diseases. Without the natural selection processes such as thousands of sperms competing for the sole egg cell, humans need in-depth, comprehensive studies to understand the entire landscape of creating lives from a random cell. In order to perform those investigations, new lives will need to be created as laboratory subjects whose mere existence is unethical, let alone the medical experiments that will be carried out on them and their eventual fate of being sacrificed. But without actually creating human babies this way, how can we truly understand the risks and complications involved? This paradox serves as a reminder of the pandora’s box of dangerous outcomes we cannot control and, therefore, suggests that IVG cannot be taken as a novel method of creating new lives. 

To sum up, it can be concluded that humans shouldn’t move forward with IVG to create new lives. Even though the development of IVG may help to address dire needs and societal problems, the uniqueness of the IVG method creates significant risks that can lead to uncontrollable outcomes such as the commodification of life, violations of individuals' birth rights, or unhealthy populations. To avoid these potential risks for generations to come, alternative reproductive technologies should be developed to address urgent population concerns.

Bibliography

Caplan, A. L, et al. “What is immoral about eugenics?” BMJ, vol. 319, no. 7220, 13Nov. 1999, pp. 1284–1284, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.319.7220.1284. 

“In Vitro Gametogenesis: A Novel Approach.” Drug Target Review, 11 Mar. 2024, www.drugtargetreview.com/news/143065/in-vitro-gametogenesis-a-novel-approach. 

Katz Rothman, Barbara. “Reproductive Technology and the Commodification of Life.” Women & Health, vol. 13, no. 1–2, Informa UK Limited, July 1988, pp. 95–100. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1300/j013v13n01_08. 

Overfelt, Maggie. “What Is IVG? In Vitro Gametogenesis, Explained.” What Is IVG? In Vitro Gametogenesis, Explained, The Bump, 29 Feb. 2024, www.thebump.com/a/ivg-in-vitro-gametogenesis. Accessed 08 May 2024. 

Stein, Rob. “Creating a Sperm or Egg from Any Cell? Reproduction Revolution on the Horizon.” NPR, 27 May 2023, www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/05/27/1177191913/sperm-or-egg-in-la b-breakthrough-in-reproduction-designer-babies-ivg. Accessed 08 May 2024. 

Von Wolff, Michael, and Thomas Haaf. “In Vitro Fertilization Technology and Child Health.” Deutsches Ärzteblatt International, 17 Jan. 2020, doi:10.3238/arztebl.2020.0023