Artificial Womb: Good or Bad?

 

Ectogenesis is the name given to it in science; J.B.S. Haldane first used it in 1924. Haldane was a very important science communicator who did for his generation what Carl Sagan achieved for the next. He did not hesitate to coin new phrases in order to get people to reflect and talk about the effects of science and technology on our civilisation. Haldane predicted that by the year 2074, ectogenesis—which he defined as pregnancy occurring in an artificial environment from conception to birth—would be responsible for more than 70% of all human births.
His forecast can still come true.

Haldane dove into contemporary issues like eugenics and the first widespread discussions of contraception and population control when he discussed the idea in his work Daedalus, a reference to the inventor from Greek mythology who, through his inventions, sought to raise humans to the level of the gods.

Haldane was correct that the societal ramifications will be enormous as the age of motherless birth approaches, regardless of whether his predictions regarding the precise date of when ectogenesis might become common or the numbers of children born that way prove to be accurate. However, they won't be the same ones that Daedalus highlighted in terms of societal ramifications.

Technology developing in increments
Where are we currently on the path to ectogenesis? To start, it is undeniable that development has accelerated during the past 20–30 years. Japanese researchers were successful in keeping goat babies alive for weeks in a machine that contained synthetic amniotic fluid in the middle of the 1990s. The lowest gestational age from which human foetuses can be kept alive has been pushed back in recent decades due to the fast improvement in neonatal intensive care. At a gestational age of just under 22 weeks, it is now possible for a preterm foetus to survive when removed from the mother.That’s only a little more than halfway through the pregnancy (normally 40 weeks). And while rescuing an infant delivered at such an early point requires sophisticated, expensive equipment and care, the capability continues to increase.
Three years ago, the New York Academy of Sciences released a thorough analysis that highlighted a number of accomplishments made by numerous research teams using ex vivo (outside the body) uterine settings to maintain mammalian embryos during the early stages of pregnancy. Basically, two biotechnology fields that have the potential to permit human ectogenesis and, along the way, what the authors of the Academy paper refer to as partial ectogenesis, are emerging quickly.

Our existing ability to deliver and maintain preterm newborns is essentially a kind of partial ectogenesis because a foetus develops significantly in terms of external form and internal organs during the second half of pregnancy. A premature newborn continues to develop inside the mother's uterus with the same support from all the tools in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), with one critical exception. Through the placenta and umbilical cord, blood carrying waste leaves and blood carrying oxygenated, fed blood enters the womb.Once delivered, however, a preemie must breathe through its lungs, cleanse the blood with its liver and kidneys, and get nutrition through its gastrointestinal tract.

However, there is a limit to how early a developing foetus can be transferred from the womb to the NICU since these organ systems, notably the lungs, are not actually ready to fulfil their job so early. With particular medicines given to the mother right before delivery, just after birth, directly into the preemie's lungs, and with intensive assistance, the limit—known as viability—has unquestionably been pushed back. However, a foetus whose only source of nutrition will be from its mother's blood may reach its ultimate limit of survival at 22 weeks gestation if it must rely on lung respiration in addition to its other organs.

However, the possibility to extend the restriction is soon to come. The artificial amniotic fluid-filled environment, which has been developed using laboratory animal models ever since the work with goats in the 1990s, is one of the two emerging essential technologies. Transferring embryos is the other area. A developing mammal can be moved from its own mother's uterus to that of a surrogate, and researchers are gradually recreating the endometrium, the layer of cells in the uterus that houses and supports the pregnancy, as a cell culture or in vitro model.The convergence of these technologies will make it possible to transfer a developing human into a system that includes the placenta and umbilical cord and supplies all consumables (oxygen and food), and removes all waste, directly through the blood.

Thus, the lungs and other organs' readiness to perform their functions would not be necessary for survival or further development. It would be true partial ectogenesis to use such a device on a foetus delivered in the middle of pregnancy. Furthermore, the transition of the technique from the laboratory to the clinic is inevitable since bypassing the growing, non-functional organs has the potential to significantly enhance survival and may potentially lower the costs of extremely premature birth.

After that, there won't be anything stopping you from pushing past the limit and into complete ectogenesis. However, there won't be any barriers to pushing the envelope the way lung viability has for traditional pre-term care. A natural uterus wouldn't even be necessary in the first stages if an in vitro fertilised egg were to be placed directly into an artificial womb at some time.

Societal implications
An artificial womb may sound futuristic, and in Haldane's day, this may have contributed to the idea that developing the technology would go hand in hand with eugenics and birth control, which would have determined which people were born and, consequently, which genetic traits were passed on to subsequent populations. Today, however, we are able to accomplish these goals without ectogenesis. We have several contraceptive options, can sterilise people or increase their fertility, and can induce pregnancies using implanted embryos created through in vitro fertilisation.

If anyone is working on a eugenics program at present, they can use surrogate mothers and don’t really require an artificial uterus–unless, we imagine a society that routinely, forcefully sterilizes all females, so that whoever has the artificial uterus has a monopoly on reproduction, ectogenesis does not relate particularly to those 1920s issues. Instead, the artificial uterus would simply move the pregnancy outside of the woman’s body. When considering societal consequences, that’s the main factor that we need to keep in mind, and doing so we see that it does relate to many currently controversial issues.

When it comes to abortion, for instance, the primary justification for the right to choose is a woman's right to govern her body, even though the idea that a baby, even an embryo, is a person with a "right to life" is a religious one that cannot be imposed on others. It is a mother's right to remove an unviable embryo or foetus from her uterus if she so chooses.

What transpires, though, when we have the technology to remove it from her without killing it and allow the pregnancy to continue in a synthetic womb? Abortion opponents have already questioned how the timing of viability affects the legality of abortion as NICU technology has advanced the survival limit. It will be interesting to watch how the possibility of ectogenesis might throw the viability problem on its head.

Without a certain, social conservatives would not be pleased with the technology's potential to make it much simpler for male gay couples to bear children, even while they would be open to what an artificial uterus might do to the abortion paradigm. There would be no need for a surrogate mother to take the embryo into her uterus and carry it for 40 weeks; all they would need is an egg donor. Practicality, waiting times, and financial considerations all make that simpler for any LGBT partnership. The same is true for transgender people who want to start a family.

Finally, the artificial uterus could have significant effects on heterosexual women who have healthy uteri due to its sheer numbers. Many people who wish to have children of their own might want to skip getting pregnant, but they might be hesitant to use a human surrogate. Why take the chance when it's not just pricey but also possible that the surrogate would develop feelings for the child she's carrying?

On the other hand, if the surrogate were a high-tech jar, the mindset might be very different. There are no concerns about competing mothers as it is your baby. I'm not saying that all prospective mothers would choose this, but Haldane's estimate would not be that far-fetched if it turns out to be a sizable portion of the population.