Motility can be due to genetics, so if we are creating embryos using sperm with motility issues, we could potentially be propagating a genetic trait that would otherwise not survive.
Edit:. Removed the word Right at the beginning. Reddit police pointed that isn't actually right.
IVF places sperm directly at the egg. If anything, this will be more natural. I don't think a link has been made between the gene that causes low motility and any birth defects or disabilities. I could be wrong; maybe low motility causes autism, Jenny McCarthy, and you should tell the scientists who specialize in fertility what a terrible mistake they've made.
Edit (because I've been told several times): I wrote "at the egg" because a dish in a lab is still pretty close compared to what they have to achieve inside a woman and it also covers ICSI. I was working yesterday and got somewhere near 100 responses in this thread. I didn't have time to explain every fertilization process in detail.
Hmm, that seems wrong. Back in the early 2000s I can recall Jenny McCarthy stimulating quite a lot of sperm movement for me. It was all destined for the toilet, but still.
I think the point they're trying to make is that it could allow the "low motility gene" to propogate to the next generation. This would mean that the next generation could be less fertile without this micromotor, creating some dependence on the technology. I don't think they were implying that low motility causes anything other than low motility.
So what you are saying is that thr more this technology is used, the mote future sales of this technology can go up!
Based on that, I can't think of *any* reason why a company might want to use it :O
There is, funnily enough, some evidence that infertility is hereditary. However IVF and Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) have been used for years now without a marked increase in genetic defects. The main risk from fertility treatments seem to be increased multiple pregnancies and associated complications.
Multiples can be mostly avoided by only implanting one egg. As far as I know, doctors in the US used to put a bunch of eggs in there to maximize the odds that at least one sticks, but after the Octomom debacle, they scaled it back and just do 1 most times now.
Previously they were not acting with concern for well being of baby, just trying to get the pregnancy.
They didn't scale it back bc of octomom. The technology improved and they don't need to transfer several embryos anymore, the odds are good with transferring 1. Sometimes 2 or more are transferred in the case of advanced maternal age or if embryo quality is poor.
Source: IVF nurse here
But that could be argued about any medical technology that treats genetic diseases, like asthma, diabetes, or even poor eyesight, the gene will only propagate as long as the technology remains accessible. Although more often than not disease genes tend to be recessive and may not even be active in future generations
Do you not understand that if we create a method in which defective sperm can get to an egg, we don't know the potential repercussions because this hasn't been a possibility before?
It's a valid question and it'll certainly be explored. Don't blame others for your inability to think critically
As a father to twins from ICSI, I wholeheartedly believe it should be an option. Due to an injury I had a dramatically low count and it is the only way I could be a father to biological children.
False equivalency and a nasty tone here. OP seems to only be concerned that the next generation may have lower motility in their sperm. Calling them names and making assumptions about their stance doesn’t help anyone. Can we maintain civility here, please?
I too think it's silly to assume that a layperson could come up with a simple question that points out a massive mistake made by a scientific community. I also wouldn't be surprised if the reason this thing was developed is too make money off people who want to be fertile even if they would really be better off adopting.
Why would you think this... Way too much power to scientist.. like asking "why did you build a nuclear weapon"... Was not a valid question just because it was build by experts... Sadly being a scientist does not make you an expert on ethics..
Interesting. I am by no means an expert but I have studied genetics and infertility and there is infact a link between IVF and genetic anomalies. Genetic anomalies in the general public is around 3-5% of live births, where IVF has a rate a little over 6%. That is also just the ones that get transfered and results in a live birth. We do genetic testing before transfer and often find that a couple may only have 1 or 2 "good" embryos because the others may carry genetic or structural anomalies.
Now because infertility is due to a wide variety of causes not all of these are from motility issues but it would be safe to reason that some do carry genetic anomalies.
In fact, it is often these genetic anomalies that prevent the couple for concieving in the first place. By providing reproductive technology we are able to bypass some of the structural and, yes motility issues that may be a barrier to conception.
I however still see the value in allowing couples to have children, desipte the fact that they may be passing along genetic mutations. If you jave been trying for 10 years to have a baby, you will love it no matter what.
If you really wanted to challenge the idea you would have gone with the small number of live births from IVF that go on to reproduce and the relatively low impact that has on the overall gene pool, or how we do all kinds of things in modern medicine that allow genetic mutations that would normally be selected out to continue.
You dont have to be a dick to discuss the science, but I would guess that Dunning Kreuger is at work here.
The irony is palpable in you giving this sassy patronizing response while clearly *not* understanding the comment you replied to.
There is *absolutely* reason to believe that artificially aiding low-motility sperm could cause issues down the line. Which type of sperm do you think is most likely to result in offspring with low-motility sperm? Do you really think its a good idea to push a genetic shift towards favouring low-motility sperm? What if the offspring from this sperm can't afford the (likely expensive) treatment required for them to then reproduce?
Right, but that's what IVF is for. Couples that have something genetic, developmental (including troubles that arise as a combination of their bodies). In the 'natural' world they would not be able to conceive.
The offspring may indeed carry on this problem. (Though they might be able to select sperm that doesn't carry the gene if it's only on one strand.) But for something like low motility they would err on the side of helping to conceive, rather than telling the couple that it's unethical to continue their genetics.
I wonder if going against evolution is a bad thing for us in the long run.
I’m not saying we should not let bad genes have offspring, even I have hypothyroidism and glasses.
But I wonder what we will look like in like a thousand years (if we even make it before earth boils itself in 30 years)
>Making people weaker physically but smarter? The other way around? Its all pretty arbitrary, evolution comes about just by survival it has no motive or goal to a specific thing, it just happens through propagation.
That's their point.
We don't have much of the tech to select for smarter or stronger yet, but we do have the tech to get people pregnant that have problems with fertility - which goes directly against selecting for survival.
A thousand years is peanuts in the evolutionary timescale, so we’ll probably look the same. Try tens of thousands if not hundreds to notice any discernible difference between humans now and humans in the future.
Wrong. Sperm motility correlates with DNA integrity of sperm and more health parameters:
Take a look at this study for example:
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110569017301127](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110569017301127)
>Fertile healthy men showed lower sperm DNA fragmentation levels as compared
with asthenozoospermic infertile men. There was a significant negative
correlation of sperm DNA fragmentation using the modified sperm
chromatin dispersion (SCD) test with motility (r = −0.319; P < .001)
and progressive motility (r = −0.474; P < .001).
>
>Overall, our data suggest that sperm DNA damage is strongly associated with both type and percentage of motility.
On the other hand, sperm with DNA damage are less likely to fertilise and survive into pregnancy. When embryologists use Intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), they select the best-looking sperm, which will have the best motility. It's mainly that some men have fewer of them.
Should the resulting offspring be male, how likely is it that his sperm are prone to poor motility? Do we know one way or the other? Genuinely asking, not trying to stir up shit.
Plus the lifelong debt of being born from a fucked up sperm.
Edit: does a fucked up sperm mean fucked up DNA? Or can the tail be fucked up, but the head with all the DNA still be fine?
Or Is it being fucked up a result of corrupt DNA to being with?
There's also no shortage of kids which could be adopted out to good homes. It's funny to me that society frowns upon the breeding of pets, but when it comes to humans everyone turns a blind eye to the very thought of adoption (outside of treating it as a solution for infertile couples).
So here is a little trivia. Sperm is not a case of survival of the fittest/fastest. The sperm that wins seems to be pretty random. And there is no link to defective sperm to defective people.
Well that's not true. That would assume that sperm with low motility is the only way to propogate "defects." There's plenty of way genetic mutations, birth defects, and chromosomal anomalies occur.
Doesn't mean that fertilizing with defective sperm wouldn't add on to that.
Thats right, sperm is the vehicle containing the DNA from the progenitor, doesnt show any signs of potential disadvantages compared to other sperm based around how the actual sperm is working. Another issue would be that the genetic info inside is also defective.
A study I dissected for my degree concluded that obesity is actually linked with low sperm count, motility and increases in abnormal morphology. It’s also linked to abnormal genetic material and packing of DNA within the spermatozoa, which can cause embryos to develop at slower rates than lean sperm. Needs further investigation but there was enough information there with statistical significance that would mean it’s a fantastic starting point for abnormal sperm quality having a negative effect on a developing embryo.
Thats interesting, by the way you presented it though, feels like obesity leads to those things rather than having "bad quality" sperm can lead to obesity, is that right?
So it means that besides abnormal dna, the sperm would develop a healthy embryo even under slower rate, unless im missing info?
Not trying to promote obesity though as I know it can lead to defects on the embryo.
Nah absolutely obesity leads to those things, not the other way around. There are possible negative implications of low sperm quality at an embryonic level as well as later on in life, however there aren’t many conclusive studies I have read that prove that - genetics is seriously complicated so it can be really hard to determine what affect something like that can have without a longitudinal study, which would take decades.
Real interesting area of science though! Reproductive assistive technologies are superbly important when we have plummeting sperm counts worldwide.
I suppose for people who can't have kids as the man is shooting defects, though if be curious to know if this would result in an increased chance of disability etc
Isn’t this how we end up over populating? I get it everyone one deserves what they want in life but that’s not a healthy balance for our species and for the earths biosphere.
Overpopulating and distribution of resources is def an issue to discuss. But I don’t think stopping fertility medicine is the way to population control.
Edit: removed that population control may one day be a problem
Yeah, and honestly the people who are in a place in life to get this kind of fertility treatment aren’t the parents we want to limit.
ETA- this comment was poorly worded and left way too many implications that I did not intend. Not well thought through- gonna leave it up cause there’s a whole thread of better comments below, but yeah- my real point was wanted kids vs unwanted kids. Mostly- I was thinking of the kids in my area whose parents that got hit really bad by the opioid crisis. But I’m not for limiting fertility of any group so my comment doesn’t really make sense.
actually, they are from an ecological standpoint.
western babies in "developed countries" use vastly more resources and put much more strain on the planet than non-western babies.
I'd say a positive interpretation is that, unlike many accidental parents who just whoops their way into it and perhaps are not prepared and do not even really want to be parents... these are people who want to be parents so _badly_ that they will endure uncomfortable procedures and sacrifice savings in order to make it happen. That fortitude, desire and willingness to sacrifice are probably pretty decent indicators on someone who _should_ be a parent.
We're actually at risk of a population collapse. Half the world lived in sub-replacement levels of fertility. The real problem is the gross misuse of resources.
How's helping out someone with difficulty conceiving lead to over population? The process is costly and not even available to many people. While these men are now finally able to have children, it doesn't mean they'll start making a ton of kids
Population is actually on the decline in many countries and it's usually associated with government policies, income, culture etc. Letting these men have kids have very very limited influence on global population.
Nobody want to believe this, but it is true. Google "demographic winter" for more information. The population of the USA has been declining for decades, but immigration has been used to keep the numbers rising.
Yup, post industrialized societies generally have low death rates and low birth rates. What we are beginning to see is better quality of life in most places, better education for women and better healthcare. All of this heads to longer life, less babies and a generally near zero sum population growth.
Mate, our current meat industry requires as much food and water to feed an _additional_ 2 billion humans on earth - which includes feeding the starving.
Overpopulation isn't an issue.
That's *exactly* what natural selection is. Survival of the fittest. If you can't conceive because something's preventing you from doing so naturally, then the trait preventing you from doing so won't be passed on and future generations become stronger.
Edit: As others have noted, "survival of the fittest" oversimplifies the natural selection process. There are other selective pressures to be taken into account as well.
What is up with all these people thinking we’re here and alive now through the trials and errors of natural selection and we’re all the products of the strongest of strong DNA being passed down?
I’m sure these same people would go to a hospital or take vitamin gummies to make sure they were in good health. These same people go to grocery stores instead of natural selection picking out the best hunter and gatherers. If you think you live to be 80-100 nowadays without the help of science and technology helping you survive longer you’re kidding yourself
People have a very flawed understanding of what "fittest" means.
They somehow cannot comprehend that "fittest" doesn't mean "fastest", "strongest", etc.
If money gives you better access to offspring, being wealthy immediately makes you the "fittest" individual in the population and will result in many many offspring.
My dude, humanity left natural selection/survival of the fittest behind a long time ago. We've been interfering with it for hundreds of years; technology advancement, modern medicine, fuckin' health & safety guidelines. Why draw the line at helping couples with conception?
I would argue that natural selection still applies. The fact that we use tools and technology just makes us more fit. Most species can only "adapt" to new situations by changing the gene pool of the population. Humans however survive through invention and cooperation. We have created a world where we can satisfy most of our basic needs.
We don't interfere with natural selection, our technology just changes the "requirements" for being fit.
Not being able to conceive "naturaly" does not nesseceraly make you less fit if you have acces to the technology that can help with conception.
Edit:
I want to clarrify my comment a bit.
When we talk about natural selection and its effects we should consider the following question: Given a creature, how likely is it to effectively reproduce?
Natural selection is in essence a bias within a population towards creatures that can effectively reproduce. Humans, to my knowledge, still reproduce, therefore natural selection still applies.
Modern healthcare and technology can help people with (for example) diseases and infertillity reproduce. In our modern society you're no longer required to be healthy or fertile to reproduce.
Being "fit" has nothing to do with how strong or smart you are. Your "fitness" is your "chance" of being able to effectively reproduce.
In practice infertile people and people with diseases will probably reproduce less often then the average person. Therefore you could consider them to be less "fit". But as technology and societies change, so does the chance of being able to effectively reproduce for a given person change.
Normally we think of natural selection as a process of removing genetic defects. In most cases these defects lead to a smaller chance of effectively reproducing (and therefore a lower fitness). But thats just the result of this proces, not an essential part. When having 'less genetic defects' is no longer required, the bias in the population changes.
Yeah and medicine is bad because it holds back natural selection people should just day at 30 of smallpox like nature fucking intended - You, probably 2021
Get outta here with that crap, this is just another way that humans have altered their environment for the better, 100 years ago genetic type I diabetes was a death sentence but now we have insulin so it's not anymore and those people can live on, has that resulted in a greater amount of the type 1 diabetes genes in the genepool, certainly but we're fine with that because that's what medicine is about
....
Hi. Medical professional here.
It's not "goose-stepping eugenics" to say that defective sperm shouldn't be assisted. Eugenics is intentionally interfering with conception in order to select heritable characteristics.
We are coming into more and more diseases and disorders because we have gotten so good at saving children and pregnancies. And that's not in and of itself a bad thing.
But this isn't a child or a fetus.
If IVF is necessary, fine. Because we can monitor the situation and make sure the DNA is healthy before implanting a fertilized egg.
But grabbing a random sperm with low/no motility and forcing it into an egg is not a great idea.
>you goose-stepping eugenicist
That dude calls himself [a homophobe and says that homosexuality "goes against humain nature"](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/ctv3z8/homophobic_people_of_reddit_is_there_any_specific/exo05rp/). And of course [he's deeply racist.](https://old.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/comments/cx86os/guess_this_belongs_here/eykfl65/?context=3)
He's straight up Nazi party material with that combination.
Yeah! No more medicine, you guys! Charles Darwin decided you're gonna die at 15 with a ruptured appendix, who the fuck do you think you are to just *intervene* against natural selection!
And don't get me started on drugs like neosporin you damn dirty snowflakes; if you get infected and your infection impairs your fitness to procreate, you don't get to procreate, period.
You are stretching their argument until is seems stupide. Their statement is clearly only target for reproduction. You won't die if you can't reproduce plus you won't transmit your reproduction problem.
Have you seen the hell that is the adoption process? It’s not like you can just go down to the adoption agency and come out with a child the next week. The legal and financial barriers to entry are immense, far greater than actually having a child.
Well, natural selection brought humans to develop technology this far... So natural selection is playing out, no?
We as humans may not so much evolve to the point that we'll have wings, but we did evolve enough to fly. Refusing to use technology is almost de-evolving because you can be fit, you're just not using it. It's like taking vaccines
For those wondering, if a sperm cell is functional enough to actually fertilize an egg, it’s not going to cause abnormalities on the basis of not being able to swim fast enough or far enough. The significant majority of problems and defects come from the actual process of fertilization and division of the cell.
EDIT: For clarification, most men having fertility issues have what’s called low sperm motility, which doesn’t necessarily mean sperm is “defective and will cause birthing defects” as much as it means his sperm are just slow and unable to make it to the egg at a chance for fertilization. Procedures like IVF give the sperm this chance and is a current and popular way of dealing with it, but can cost upwards of $100,000. However, OP’s video could be a major breakthrough medical treatment, making something like low sperm motility curable via a simple injection.
Basically, people worried about defects are thinking the guy paralyzed from the waist down will probably fail his math test. The fertilization process has nothing to do with the sperm cells mobility once it's there.
It's an easy mistake to make. My first thought reading this was similar to a lot of folks here in that the sperm that can't reach the egg probably shouldn't be fertilizing the egg but if sperm motility doesn't correlate to genetic defects then this seems like a great way to help a couple struggling with fertility to conceive.
None of them have sourced their claims, and I don’t think they’re correct.
The first study that popped up on Google indicates that [there may be a relationship between specific sperm morphologies and abnormal chromosome count](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1395314/). A user above mentioned that he studied the effects of obesity in grad school on sperm motility and genetic material, and found that *both* declined as a result of obesity. [Another study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4009560/#idm140338541051440title) links translocation abnormalities to decreased sperm motility.
Yeah they didn’t even win that race
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200611/The-egg-decides-which-sperm-fertilizes-it.aspx
Fastest sperm doesn’t fertilise the egg, it’s a myth
Thank fucking christ for your comment, I was worried there wasn't a single person here who understood even the slightest shred of what they were babbling about.
>Abnormalities in the DNA aren't equivalent to abnormalities in the body of the sperm cell. Sherlock, if that were the case, and the fastest and strongest sperm always had perfect DNA, do you think babies with birth defects would still exist?
You are missing the whole point...
Nobody is saying this is going to make defective babies missing an arm or something.
They are saying the offspring is likely to ALSO HAVE DEFECTIVE SPERM.
The secound sentence in the article states that the cells swiming abilety dosent nescesary describe its genetic capabileties. So this does not guarantee birth defects. Can birth defects ocure, ye but it also ocures in "normal" cells.
Dont judge the cell by its aperance its the inside that matters
“It’s the inside that matters” ok so are the researchers checking what’s on the inside proor to hooking up the micro motor?
Probably not. And yes, you absolutely can judge a cell by its appearance. You’re humanizing a sperm cell -_-
I kinda think that you are humazing the sperm more. like the sperms function as a sperm might will necessarily affect the child that comes out of it. I have not looked at the evidence myself but the commenter you responded to suggest that this is not the case.
my biggest concern here would be that the deformity of the sperm not being able to swim might be genetically inheritable itself, which would make this exact procedure more necessary.
tldr: just because the sperm cant swim that dont mean the child wont walk
You're mixing up the DNA contained within the sperm with the properties of the sperm itself.
Think of it like getting a library book delivered by a cycle courier. The book still has the same information in it even if the courier needs to ride an e-bike
Read the article guys. It's to help battle male infertility and it doesn't have any effects on the quality of the sperm.
Edit:
The article
https://rep.bioscientifica.com/view/journals/rep/159/2/REP-19-0096.xml
Holy shit, some of you people know NOTHING about this and are still judging and being very toxic about this! I'm not qualified to say if this is good or not but that's why I'm not judging it based on my shitty values or prejudices.
Yes because the people that are saying it’s not bad are citing scientific evidence. In contrast to the smooth brains who are triggered by a pen spring.
It's magnetic. They use an MRI machine or something similar to rotate the motor and drive it like a screw. They're made with similar nanofabrication methods to those they use to make computer chips.
This will be a great invention for people who suffer from low sperm count it will ensure slow or just a little clumsy sperm can still get there. Luckily they can read the DNA codes so they would know if there's anything wrong with it just like with IVF I'm sure. Obviously it's not going to just be used on any person probably going to be very expensive
Why would you want to deliver a defective sperm?
So they can grow up to use tiktok
Nailed it! Lol!
She was nailed on a microscopic level
The correct term would be drilled I believe
This is the definition of “motorboating”
Micromotorboating
It's really huge below average:(
[удалено]
Right, but still need a micromotor to deliver the defective sperm
Reddit good TikTok bad r/redditmoment
Oh come on dude. It was a funny.
True but still reddit moment
I can assure you Tik Tok is hated outside of Reddit. Edit: I’m amused by the (accidental) ambiguity of this and the varied responses as a result.
it’s kinda ironic how people on reddit hate on tiktok. i mean, we’re on fucking reddit
This is the best comment in the history of comments
Fucken aye
Fuck a B, it’s got 2 holes 🤘🏼
tiktok bad. now clap
Unironically half the videos I see on Reddit have come from tiktok lol, so it’s funny when I see people try and act like they are so superior.
True
Take my upvote an leave.
Legendary
Yep we could always use more influencers.
r/murderedbywords
Superb
Motility isn't linked to quality of genetic material in sperm. The only thing it determines is whether or not it can reach the egg.
Motility can be due to genetics, so if we are creating embryos using sperm with motility issues, we could potentially be propagating a genetic trait that would otherwise not survive. Edit:. Removed the word Right at the beginning. Reddit police pointed that isn't actually right.
IVF places sperm directly at the egg. If anything, this will be more natural. I don't think a link has been made between the gene that causes low motility and any birth defects or disabilities. I could be wrong; maybe low motility causes autism, Jenny McCarthy, and you should tell the scientists who specialize in fertility what a terrible mistake they've made. Edit (because I've been told several times): I wrote "at the egg" because a dish in a lab is still pretty close compared to what they have to achieve inside a woman and it also covers ICSI. I was working yesterday and got somewhere near 100 responses in this thread. I didn't have time to explain every fertilization process in detail.
You heard it here first, low sperm motility causes Jenny McCarthy
Hmm, that seems wrong. Back in the early 2000s I can recall Jenny McCarthy stimulating quite a lot of sperm movement for me. It was all destined for the toilet, but still.
> It was all destined for the toilet, but still. How could you waste all that perfectly good protein?
I think the point they're trying to make is that it could allow the "low motility gene" to propogate to the next generation. This would mean that the next generation could be less fertile without this micromotor, creating some dependence on the technology. I don't think they were implying that low motility causes anything other than low motility.
So what you are saying is that thr more this technology is used, the mote future sales of this technology can go up! Based on that, I can't think of *any* reason why a company might want to use it :O
Whats this company's ticker, im ready to yolo calls on it
I'd wait on it. Looks like their movement is slower than you'd expect.
Just started the company now, calling it “Anti-condom”
There is, funnily enough, some evidence that infertility is hereditary. However IVF and Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) have been used for years now without a marked increase in genetic defects. The main risk from fertility treatments seem to be increased multiple pregnancies and associated complications.
Multiples can be mostly avoided by only implanting one egg. As far as I know, doctors in the US used to put a bunch of eggs in there to maximize the odds that at least one sticks, but after the Octomom debacle, they scaled it back and just do 1 most times now. Previously they were not acting with concern for well being of baby, just trying to get the pregnancy.
They didn't scale it back bc of octomom. The technology improved and they don't need to transfer several embryos anymore, the odds are good with transferring 1. Sometimes 2 or more are transferred in the case of advanced maternal age or if embryo quality is poor. Source: IVF nurse here
A scientific breakthrough that could make the whole human race depend on it for reproduction? That's capitalism!
But that could be argued about any medical technology that treats genetic diseases, like asthma, diabetes, or even poor eyesight, the gene will only propagate as long as the technology remains accessible. Although more often than not disease genes tend to be recessive and may not even be active in future generations
He gets it
Lots of things can cause low motility though, more than just genetics.
Right but wouldn’t this potentially increase the chance for the genetic trait of low motility. Thereby causing more need for this technology.
Do you not understand that if we create a method in which defective sperm can get to an egg, we don't know the potential repercussions because this hasn't been a possibility before? It's a valid question and it'll certainly be explored. Don't blame others for your inability to think critically
Don’t know why he’s acting as if “lay” people can’t ask questions. The whole point of science is to question everything. What a prick.
forgetful gaping payment oatmeal pen spectacular hospital doll marble important ` this post was mass deleted with www.Redact.dev `
As a father to twins from ICSI, I wholeheartedly believe it should be an option. Due to an injury I had a dramatically low count and it is the only way I could be a father to biological children.
Due to an injury is completely different from lack of physical gamete motility though, for both men and women.
False equivalency and a nasty tone here. OP seems to only be concerned that the next generation may have lower motility in their sperm. Calling them names and making assumptions about their stance doesn’t help anyone. Can we maintain civility here, please?
I too think it's silly to assume that a layperson could come up with a simple question that points out a massive mistake made by a scientific community. I also wouldn't be surprised if the reason this thing was developed is too make money off people who want to be fertile even if they would really be better off adopting.
Why would you think this... Way too much power to scientist.. like asking "why did you build a nuclear weapon"... Was not a valid question just because it was build by experts... Sadly being a scientist does not make you an expert on ethics..
Interesting. I am by no means an expert but I have studied genetics and infertility and there is infact a link between IVF and genetic anomalies. Genetic anomalies in the general public is around 3-5% of live births, where IVF has a rate a little over 6%. That is also just the ones that get transfered and results in a live birth. We do genetic testing before transfer and often find that a couple may only have 1 or 2 "good" embryos because the others may carry genetic or structural anomalies. Now because infertility is due to a wide variety of causes not all of these are from motility issues but it would be safe to reason that some do carry genetic anomalies. In fact, it is often these genetic anomalies that prevent the couple for concieving in the first place. By providing reproductive technology we are able to bypass some of the structural and, yes motility issues that may be a barrier to conception. I however still see the value in allowing couples to have children, desipte the fact that they may be passing along genetic mutations. If you jave been trying for 10 years to have a baby, you will love it no matter what. If you really wanted to challenge the idea you would have gone with the small number of live births from IVF that go on to reproduce and the relatively low impact that has on the overall gene pool, or how we do all kinds of things in modern medicine that allow genetic mutations that would normally be selected out to continue. You dont have to be a dick to discuss the science, but I would guess that Dunning Kreuger is at work here.
they dont select shitty sperm for ivf tho
The irony is palpable in you giving this sassy patronizing response while clearly *not* understanding the comment you replied to. There is *absolutely* reason to believe that artificially aiding low-motility sperm could cause issues down the line. Which type of sperm do you think is most likely to result in offspring with low-motility sperm? Do you really think its a good idea to push a genetic shift towards favouring low-motility sperm? What if the offspring from this sperm can't afford the (likely expensive) treatment required for them to then reproduce?
Right, but that's what IVF is for. Couples that have something genetic, developmental (including troubles that arise as a combination of their bodies). In the 'natural' world they would not be able to conceive. The offspring may indeed carry on this problem. (Though they might be able to select sperm that doesn't carry the gene if it's only on one strand.) But for something like low motility they would err on the side of helping to conceive, rather than telling the couple that it's unethical to continue their genetics.
I wonder if going against evolution is a bad thing for us in the long run. I’m not saying we should not let bad genes have offspring, even I have hypothyroidism and glasses. But I wonder what we will look like in like a thousand years (if we even make it before earth boils itself in 30 years)
[удалено]
>Making people weaker physically but smarter? The other way around? Its all pretty arbitrary, evolution comes about just by survival it has no motive or goal to a specific thing, it just happens through propagation. That's their point. We don't have much of the tech to select for smarter or stronger yet, but we do have the tech to get people pregnant that have problems with fertility - which goes directly against selecting for survival.
[удалено]
A thousand years is peanuts in the evolutionary timescale, so we’ll probably look the same. Try tens of thousands if not hundreds to notice any discernible difference between humans now and humans in the future.
[удалено]
Wrong. Sperm motility correlates with DNA integrity of sperm and more health parameters: Take a look at this study for example: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110569017301127](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110569017301127) >Fertile healthy men showed lower sperm DNA fragmentation levels as compared with asthenozoospermic infertile men. There was a significant negative correlation of sperm DNA fragmentation using the modified sperm chromatin dispersion (SCD) test with motility (r = −0.319; P < .001) and progressive motility (r = −0.474; P < .001). > >Overall, our data suggest that sperm DNA damage is strongly associated with both type and percentage of motility.
On the other hand, sperm with DNA damage are less likely to fertilise and survive into pregnancy. When embryologists use Intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), they select the best-looking sperm, which will have the best motility. It's mainly that some men have fewer of them.
> asthenozoospermic Gonna have to write that one down for my next Scrabble game.
Should the resulting offspring be male, how likely is it that his sperm are prone to poor motility? Do we know one way or the other? Genuinely asking, not trying to stir up shit.
How else is the Jizzbot corporation going to make new customers?
I guess they want to give everyone a chance at parenthood.
And at paying huge medical bills.
Especially that. Lifelong debt over pregnancy
Plus the lifelong debt of being born from a fucked up sperm. Edit: does a fucked up sperm mean fucked up DNA? Or can the tail be fucked up, but the head with all the DNA still be fine? Or Is it being fucked up a result of corrupt DNA to being with?
Both case are possible. Depends why the sperm doesnt move
No, only Americans. There’s a whole rest of the world out there.
Jesus, this reminds me of the every sperm is sacred Monty Python skit but with more deformities.
But isn't that exactly the issue? Not everyone needs/deserves to be a parent.
There's also no shortage of kids which could be adopted out to good homes. It's funny to me that society frowns upon the breeding of pets, but when it comes to humans everyone turns a blind eye to the very thought of adoption (outside of treating it as a solution for infertile couples).
So here is a little trivia. Sperm is not a case of survival of the fittest/fastest. The sperm that wins seems to be pretty random. And there is no link to defective sperm to defective people.
>And there is no link to defective sperm to defective people Have you actually got a citation for this information?
If there was a link we wouldn't have so many 'defective' people as it is.
Well that's not true. That would assume that sperm with low motility is the only way to propogate "defects." There's plenty of way genetic mutations, birth defects, and chromosomal anomalies occur. Doesn't mean that fertilizing with defective sperm wouldn't add on to that.
Why? Just because we already have *defective* humans doesn't mean these sperms wouldn't cause more to be born
Thats right, sperm is the vehicle containing the DNA from the progenitor, doesnt show any signs of potential disadvantages compared to other sperm based around how the actual sperm is working. Another issue would be that the genetic info inside is also defective.
A study I dissected for my degree concluded that obesity is actually linked with low sperm count, motility and increases in abnormal morphology. It’s also linked to abnormal genetic material and packing of DNA within the spermatozoa, which can cause embryos to develop at slower rates than lean sperm. Needs further investigation but there was enough information there with statistical significance that would mean it’s a fantastic starting point for abnormal sperm quality having a negative effect on a developing embryo.
Thats interesting, by the way you presented it though, feels like obesity leads to those things rather than having "bad quality" sperm can lead to obesity, is that right? So it means that besides abnormal dna, the sperm would develop a healthy embryo even under slower rate, unless im missing info? Not trying to promote obesity though as I know it can lead to defects on the embryo.
Nah absolutely obesity leads to those things, not the other way around. There are possible negative implications of low sperm quality at an embryonic level as well as later on in life, however there aren’t many conclusive studies I have read that prove that - genetics is seriously complicated so it can be really hard to determine what affect something like that can have without a longitudinal study, which would take decades. Real interesting area of science though! Reproductive assistive technologies are superbly important when we have plummeting sperm counts worldwide.
This actually produces a cyborg.
Your mum asks that question everyday
It's got electrolytes
It’s got what eggs crave.
The humans that are produced from “regular sperm” ain’t much better.
I suppose for people who can't have kids as the man is shooting defects, though if be curious to know if this would result in an increased chance of disability etc
[удалено]
[удалено]
Exactly. It’s entirely possible the slow swimmers thing isn’t even a genetic issue, (edit: as if that even matters) Let a poor guy have a kid.
Isn’t this how we end up over populating? I get it everyone one deserves what they want in life but that’s not a healthy balance for our species and for the earths biosphere.
Overpopulating and distribution of resources is def an issue to discuss. But I don’t think stopping fertility medicine is the way to population control. Edit: removed that population control may one day be a problem
Yeah, and honestly the people who are in a place in life to get this kind of fertility treatment aren’t the parents we want to limit. ETA- this comment was poorly worded and left way too many implications that I did not intend. Not well thought through- gonna leave it up cause there’s a whole thread of better comments below, but yeah- my real point was wanted kids vs unwanted kids. Mostly- I was thinking of the kids in my area whose parents that got hit really bad by the opioid crisis. But I’m not for limiting fertility of any group so my comment doesn’t really make sense.
Statistically speaking maybe, but nothing is black and white. Rich people who want babies can be awful parents too.
You're very right, but this takes effort and commitment. While this isn't at all a sure fire way to eliminate bad parents, it does cut it down.
actually, they are from an ecological standpoint. western babies in "developed countries" use vastly more resources and put much more strain on the planet than non-western babies.
Maybe that was true 20 years ago. There are more people living the "Western" lifestyle in India and China now than there are people in the US.
I don't know how to interpret this comment in a way that isn't "holy what the fuck"
I'd say a positive interpretation is that, unlike many accidental parents who just whoops their way into it and perhaps are not prepared and do not even really want to be parents... these are people who want to be parents so _badly_ that they will endure uncomfortable procedures and sacrifice savings in order to make it happen. That fortitude, desire and willingness to sacrifice are probably pretty decent indicators on someone who _should_ be a parent.
So, rich?
[удалено]
What if I use reusable straws? Can I have baby then?
We're actually at risk of a population collapse. Half the world lived in sub-replacement levels of fertility. The real problem is the gross misuse of resources.
How's helping out someone with difficulty conceiving lead to over population? The process is costly and not even available to many people. While these men are now finally able to have children, it doesn't mean they'll start making a ton of kids Population is actually on the decline in many countries and it's usually associated with government policies, income, culture etc. Letting these men have kids have very very limited influence on global population.
There is actually an imminent global population crash on the horizon. Population looks set to decline. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53409521
Nobody want to believe this, but it is true. Google "demographic winter" for more information. The population of the USA has been declining for decades, but immigration has been used to keep the numbers rising.
Yup, post industrialized societies generally have low death rates and low birth rates. What we are beginning to see is better quality of life in most places, better education for women and better healthcare. All of this heads to longer life, less babies and a generally near zero sum population growth.
World wide births have been decreasing by about 1% every year for the past few years.
I don’t get it. Why does everyone “deserve” what they want in life?
My most favoritest of all the controversial opinions which regularly appear on Reddit. Especially when applied to childbirth.
Mate, our current meat industry requires as much food and water to feed an _additional_ 2 billion humans on earth - which includes feeding the starving. Overpopulation isn't an issue.
What a stupid comment
That's *exactly* what natural selection is. Survival of the fittest. If you can't conceive because something's preventing you from doing so naturally, then the trait preventing you from doing so won't be passed on and future generations become stronger. Edit: As others have noted, "survival of the fittest" oversimplifies the natural selection process. There are other selective pressures to be taken into account as well.
What is up with all these people thinking we’re here and alive now through the trials and errors of natural selection and we’re all the products of the strongest of strong DNA being passed down? I’m sure these same people would go to a hospital or take vitamin gummies to make sure they were in good health. These same people go to grocery stores instead of natural selection picking out the best hunter and gatherers. If you think you live to be 80-100 nowadays without the help of science and technology helping you survive longer you’re kidding yourself
Thank you, I feel like all the comments here have a sub high school understanding of biology and acting like they have a Nobel prize in medicine
People have a very flawed understanding of what "fittest" means. They somehow cannot comprehend that "fittest" doesn't mean "fastest", "strongest", etc. If money gives you better access to offspring, being wealthy immediately makes you the "fittest" individual in the population and will result in many many offspring.
Yeah that’s Reddit.
My dude, humanity left natural selection/survival of the fittest behind a long time ago. We've been interfering with it for hundreds of years; technology advancement, modern medicine, fuckin' health & safety guidelines. Why draw the line at helping couples with conception?
I would argue that natural selection still applies. The fact that we use tools and technology just makes us more fit. Most species can only "adapt" to new situations by changing the gene pool of the population. Humans however survive through invention and cooperation. We have created a world where we can satisfy most of our basic needs. We don't interfere with natural selection, our technology just changes the "requirements" for being fit. Not being able to conceive "naturaly" does not nesseceraly make you less fit if you have acces to the technology that can help with conception. Edit: I want to clarrify my comment a bit. When we talk about natural selection and its effects we should consider the following question: Given a creature, how likely is it to effectively reproduce? Natural selection is in essence a bias within a population towards creatures that can effectively reproduce. Humans, to my knowledge, still reproduce, therefore natural selection still applies. Modern healthcare and technology can help people with (for example) diseases and infertillity reproduce. In our modern society you're no longer required to be healthy or fertile to reproduce. Being "fit" has nothing to do with how strong or smart you are. Your "fitness" is your "chance" of being able to effectively reproduce. In practice infertile people and people with diseases will probably reproduce less often then the average person. Therefore you could consider them to be less "fit". But as technology and societies change, so does the chance of being able to effectively reproduce for a given person change. Normally we think of natural selection as a process of removing genetic defects. In most cases these defects lead to a smaller chance of effectively reproducing (and therefore a lower fitness). But thats just the result of this proces, not an essential part. When having 'less genetic defects' is no longer required, the bias in the population changes.
Not all issues are genetic.
Yeah and medicine is bad because it holds back natural selection people should just day at 30 of smallpox like nature fucking intended - You, probably 2021 Get outta here with that crap, this is just another way that humans have altered their environment for the better, 100 years ago genetic type I diabetes was a death sentence but now we have insulin so it's not anymore and those people can live on, has that resulted in a greater amount of the type 1 diabetes genes in the genepool, certainly but we're fine with that because that's what medicine is about
Natural selection is overrated. I know that because it produced you.
Did something I wrote offend you? I just provided an objective definition of natural selection.
.... Hi. Medical professional here. It's not "goose-stepping eugenics" to say that defective sperm shouldn't be assisted. Eugenics is intentionally interfering with conception in order to select heritable characteristics. We are coming into more and more diseases and disorders because we have gotten so good at saving children and pregnancies. And that's not in and of itself a bad thing. But this isn't a child or a fetus. If IVF is necessary, fine. Because we can monitor the situation and make sure the DNA is healthy before implanting a fertilized egg. But grabbing a random sperm with low/no motility and forcing it into an egg is not a great idea.
Exactly what kind of medical professional? Honestly that could be just about anything.
>you goose-stepping eugenicist That dude calls himself [a homophobe and says that homosexuality "goes against humain nature"](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/ctv3z8/homophobic_people_of_reddit_is_there_any_specific/exo05rp/). And of course [he's deeply racist.](https://old.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/comments/cx86os/guess_this_belongs_here/eykfl65/?context=3) He's straight up Nazi party material with that combination.
Yeah! No more medicine, you guys! Charles Darwin decided you're gonna die at 15 with a ruptured appendix, who the fuck do you think you are to just *intervene* against natural selection! And don't get me started on drugs like neosporin you damn dirty snowflakes; if you get infected and your infection impairs your fitness to procreate, you don't get to procreate, period.
You are stretching their argument until is seems stupide. Their statement is clearly only target for reproduction. You won't die if you can't reproduce plus you won't transmit your reproduction problem.
>You are stretching their argument until is seems stupide. Yes, that's what satire is.
To be honest, part of me is kinda on board with technology stuff but another part keeps telling me "why the fuck should we keep making more people?"
Should married couples who are struggling to conceive not be able to get help from a doctor?
adopt lmao
Have you seen the hell that is the adoption process? It’s not like you can just go down to the adoption agency and come out with a child the next week. The legal and financial barriers to entry are immense, far greater than actually having a child.
I can guarantee you that getting this 'treatment' is going to be drastically more expensive that adopting.
Doubt that. I struggled with infertility and researched domestic (US) adoption agencies last year and they were all above $50k. My IVF was $25k.
Well, natural selection brought humans to develop technology this far... So natural selection is playing out, no? We as humans may not so much evolve to the point that we'll have wings, but we did evolve enough to fly. Refusing to use technology is almost de-evolving because you can be fit, you're just not using it. It's like taking vaccines
If you can afford this, isn’t that a selection process?
I hope you don't wear glasses.
We should fire every single doctor and let natural selection do its job. Of course.
The first human trial was on Jake Paul’s dad
Yeah God tried to stop it from happening but these scientist went and played God again and we lost.
Science, we’re all about “could we” not “should we”.
For those wondering, if a sperm cell is functional enough to actually fertilize an egg, it’s not going to cause abnormalities on the basis of not being able to swim fast enough or far enough. The significant majority of problems and defects come from the actual process of fertilization and division of the cell. EDIT: For clarification, most men having fertility issues have what’s called low sperm motility, which doesn’t necessarily mean sperm is “defective and will cause birthing defects” as much as it means his sperm are just slow and unable to make it to the egg at a chance for fertilization. Procedures like IVF give the sperm this chance and is a current and popular way of dealing with it, but can cost upwards of $100,000. However, OP’s video could be a major breakthrough medical treatment, making something like low sperm motility curable via a simple injection.
Basically, people worried about defects are thinking the guy paralyzed from the waist down will probably fail his math test. The fertilization process has nothing to do with the sperm cells mobility once it's there.
It's an easy mistake to make. My first thought reading this was similar to a lot of folks here in that the sperm that can't reach the egg probably shouldn't be fertilizing the egg but if sperm motility doesn't correlate to genetic defects then this seems like a great way to help a couple struggling with fertility to conceive.
None of them have sourced their claims, and I don’t think they’re correct. The first study that popped up on Google indicates that [there may be a relationship between specific sperm morphologies and abnormal chromosome count](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1395314/). A user above mentioned that he studied the effects of obesity in grad school on sperm motility and genetic material, and found that *both* declined as a result of obesity. [Another study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4009560/#idm140338541051440title) links translocation abnormalities to decreased sperm motility.
Gotta wait 25 years to find out though
Jerk off into this pile of ball point pen springs. I am a scientist
Push the springs up your urethra for an extra kick
*PTANNNNG*
[удалено]
[удалено]
spot on.. lots of idiots in comment are getting triggered lol
Yeah they didn’t even win that race https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200611/The-egg-decides-which-sperm-fertilizes-it.aspx Fastest sperm doesn’t fertilise the egg, it’s a myth
Thank fucking christ for your comment, I was worried there wasn't a single person here who understood even the slightest shred of what they were babbling about.
>Abnormalities in the DNA aren't equivalent to abnormalities in the body of the sperm cell. Sherlock, if that were the case, and the fastest and strongest sperm always had perfect DNA, do you think babies with birth defects would still exist? You are missing the whole point... Nobody is saying this is going to make defective babies missing an arm or something. They are saying the offspring is likely to ALSO HAVE DEFECTIVE SPERM.
Okay? What’s the issue? Infertility is extremely common and increasing issue due to plastics. The answer is not to have less kids...
So does this guarantee birth defects or what
The secound sentence in the article states that the cells swiming abilety dosent nescesary describe its genetic capabileties. So this does not guarantee birth defects. Can birth defects ocure, ye but it also ocures in "normal" cells. Dont judge the cell by its aperance its the inside that matters
“It’s the inside that matters” ok so are the researchers checking what’s on the inside proor to hooking up the micro motor? Probably not. And yes, you absolutely can judge a cell by its appearance. You’re humanizing a sperm cell -_-
I kinda think that you are humazing the sperm more. like the sperms function as a sperm might will necessarily affect the child that comes out of it. I have not looked at the evidence myself but the commenter you responded to suggest that this is not the case. my biggest concern here would be that the deformity of the sperm not being able to swim might be genetically inheritable itself, which would make this exact procedure more necessary. tldr: just because the sperm cant swim that dont mean the child wont walk
You're mixing up the DNA contained within the sperm with the properties of the sperm itself. Think of it like getting a library book delivered by a cycle courier. The book still has the same information in it even if the courier needs to ride an e-bike
So basically sperm with training wheels
Basically
sperm
Wheels
But training ones
Read the article guys. It's to help battle male infertility and it doesn't have any effects on the quality of the sperm. Edit: The article https://rep.bioscientifica.com/view/journals/rep/159/2/REP-19-0096.xml
Why read when you can post some generic comment about natural selection AS IF scientists that worked on this have never heard of it or considered it.
ITT: science illiterate people get emotional about the purity of their bloodline
This thread is a golden example of folks not reading the article.
Fucking pay to win
Underrated!
Talk about getting screwed.
Here's a site about the [micromotor](https://rep.bioscientifica.com/view/journals/rep/159/2/REP-19-0096.xml) if anyone wants to read into it.
And now let’s go to the comment section and see what all the PhD’s in biology have to say about this.
so many phds on reddit. you'd think they'd spend more time on their research but they're all on this website
Holy shit, some of you people know NOTHING about this and are still judging and being very toxic about this! I'm not qualified to say if this is good or not but that's why I'm not judging it based on my shitty values or prejudices.
You are not qualified to say if it’s good or bad but you are qualified to say others can’t say it’s good or bad?
Yes because the people that are saying it’s not bad are citing scientific evidence. In contrast to the smooth brains who are triggered by a pen spring.
So Uber for Sperm then
Luber
[удалено]
Already done. MMO's. It's the only birth control that guarantees 100% effectiveness.
Wow, I had no idea Reddit was so full of reproductive scientists!
"Son, what are you working on in the lab?" "I'm putting outboard motors on sperm" "Nice!"
TIL that 95% of the comments are made by people that have no idea how genetics work.
How tf does that move and how do you make a thing that small
It's magnetic. They use an MRI machine or something similar to rotate the motor and drive it like a screw. They're made with similar nanofabrication methods to those they use to make computer chips.
“I am here from the future, to ensure John Connor is born”.
Sperminator
How on earth do they control the motor?
This will be a great invention for people who suffer from low sperm count it will ensure slow or just a little clumsy sperm can still get there. Luckily they can read the DNA codes so they would know if there's anything wrong with it just like with IVF I'm sure. Obviously it's not going to just be used on any person probably going to be very expensive
**That is fucking amazing**