Paper

Female menstrual cycle in a dish

Mini reproductive system on a chip mimics human menstrual cycle

Device Mimicking Female Reproductive Cycle Could Aid Research

"Certainly the technologies are rapidly moving forward where one could imagine these technologies being used to create a baby outside the womb in the laboratory," says Insoo Hyun, a bioethicist at Case Western Reserve University.

That would raise many ethical issues.

"If, hypothetically, you can fertilize an egg outside a body and carry it all the way to term outside the body, then who's responsible for this baby now?" Hyun says. He also stresses that scientists are nowhere near being able to do that yet.

RealFurry™

Feminists are gonna love this.
Recently a Swiss (?) feminist "demanded" the creation of artificial wombs, it was in the German news (slow day, I guess).

Lance_Armstrong said:
RealFurry™

I've half a mind to necro that thread just to respond to the second commenter's "hybrid overlords" quip and then pin the blame on you if anyone calls me out on it.

Oh, and on-topic, that sounds... interesting.

Munkelzahn said:
Feminists are gonna love this.
Recently a Swiss (?) feminist "demanded" the creation of artificial wombs, it was in the German news (slow day, I guess).

This could be a double-edged sword for feminists. The same technologies could allow men to have their own children without a mother, not even a surrogate. That's unprecedented. Child support and divorce just don't enter the picture. You could also use sex selection. A colony of men could select or create only male embryos. Outlawing these practices could be difficult, because it doesn't necessarily harm anybody and it could be done off the grid.

InannaEloah said:
I've half a mind to necro that thread just to respond to the second commenter's "hybrid overlords" quip and then pin the blame on you if anyone calls me out on it.

Overlords, underlings, gene therapy. There are many ways this could go.

Lance_Armstrong said:
This could be a double-edged sword for feminists. The same technologies could allow men to have their own children without a mother, not even a surrogate. That's unprecedented. Child support and divorce just don't enter the picture. You could also use sex selection. A colony of men could select or create only male embryos. Outlawing these practices could be difficult, because it doesn't necessarily harm anybody and it could be done off the grid.

i doubt this world is ready for such tech as is but then again, i also doubt this world gives a F and would jump at such an opportunity regardless of the risks.

Munkelzahn said:
Feminists are gonna love this.
Recently a Swiss (?) feminist "demanded" the creation of artificial wombs, it was in the German news (slow day, I guess).

feminists likely won't be the only complication with this new tech. trans people will likely be jumping for joy at the announcement of such tech. >.> and i very highly doubt the pro-life nuts will be quiet and WILL find something related to it to complain about in order to try and stop it due to "muh religion". (no, i'm not trying to start anything. just pointing out a real possibility with that.)

much as i would love to see us continue to progress towards anthros becoming a thing, i dislike this world so much that i don't think it deserves a shot at such tech. the results of the tech will inevitably be caught up in the endless bitching and whining of religion, politics, various "rights" movements, and other things. they'll have to fight from the beginning just for their right to exist if not to have the same basic rights as everyone else.

-_- this world is terrible.

Trans people should and afaik are happy abt that. As well as the news that womb transplants are now possible. Like.

I dont see how people being happy for something is a bad thing dude.

GDelscribe said:
Trans people should and afaik are happy abt that. As well as the news that womb transplants are now possible. Like.

I dont see how people being happy for something is a bad thing dude.

whether or not their happy isn't the problem.

we're still squabbling over bathrooms and whether or not boys should be allowed in the opposite sexes utilities because they think they're the opposite sex when they're not.

this'll just be something else for people to fuss about and i'm sure the mainstream media and others will love it when this comes up.

treos said:
whether or not boys should be allowed in the opposite sexes utilities because they think they're the opposite sex when they're not.

thats like. really fucking transphobic.

Good thing they disabled commentaries on that YT video. I can imagine there would've been a comment wars on a whole new level.

Why are we wasting time and resources on this...? Who cares about fake vaginas and manufactured babies, I WANT MUH REGENERATING CELLS!

Jokes aside, I feel like we're slowly dipping into the side of science we really shouldn't be, but I guess it'll be fun to see what kind of disasters sprinter off from this.

Mutisija said:
thats like. really fucking transphobic.

buzz words... phobic and phobia are words for an irrational fear of something. i do not FEAR trans people therefore i am not transphobic.

i go by what people were born as. either male or female. i'll call you male or female based on your physical appearance, the sound of your voice, and other contributing factors.

and i am going to end an argument before it even begins because i am not arguing with someone who uses buzz words in an attempt to silence a person and because i don't want another neg record for personal attacks when i am doing no such thing. unless it's that "perceived" type of attack in which case it's not even worth paying attention to.

Devoid said:
Good thing they disabled commentaries on that YT video. I can imagine there would've been a comment wars on a whole new level.

what youtube video?

treos said:
buzz words... phobic and phobia are words for an irrational fear of something. i do not FEAR trans people therefore i am not transphobic.

Did you know that "philia" means "brotherly love"? "Pedo" means "child" or "relating to children".

From this, we can say that "pedophilia" means "brotherly love of children".

Given that you seem to believe that the meaning of a word can be determined entirely by a rigid interpretation of its constituent parts, I fully expect you to support pedophilia from now on. To do otherwise would be hypocritical.

breaking news! words can mean different things in different contexts!

Clawdragons, why are you and mutisija using such obvious bait in a clear attempt at forcing me into getting myself a 2nd neg record?

was it because i said something you don't like? tough, deal with it.

treos said:
Clawdragons, why are you and mutisija using such obvious bait in a clear attempt at forcing me into getting myself a 2nd neg record?

was it because i said something you don't like? tough, deal with it.

Treos, you're being transphobic and intentionally inflammatory, and then getting mad at people for calling you out on it. You really expect Mutisija (who happens to be nb trans as it is) to be making stuff up just to spite you?

Transness isn't this made up thing dude, and you're intentionally doing this with the express intent of making people mad. You more or less just admitted this in the post here.

On the actual topic this thread is supposed to be about though. Could this technology also be applied to use for general organ replacement? Such as for cancer victims, in any reasonable way?

treos said:
Clawdragons, why are you and mutisija using such obvious bait in a clear attempt at forcing me into getting myself a 2nd neg record?

was it because i said something you don't like? tough, deal with it.

Negative records are not given out for disagreements like this. If you remain civil, and listen if any admins put a halt on a conversation, you won't get a record for it.

I'm not trying to bait you into getting a negative record. I am trying to get you to understand why trying to understand a word solely as the sum of meaning of its constituent parts is ridiculous.

Explain to my why your reasoning doesn't apply to my reduction of pedophilia to its constituent parts. Explain to me why you are unwilling to say that you support pedophilia.

Once you have done so, examine your explanation, and realize that it also applies to words like "transphobia", "homophobia" and "islamophobia".

When people make bad arguments, I call them out on it. It does not matter whether those arguments agree with my position or not.

Do you know how much time I've spent trying to convince people that the "woman's right to choose what happens with her own body" argument is bad and ought not be used? Quite a bit. And yet I am definitely pro-choice.

If you don't think you can discuss this issue without devolving into insults and getting a record, do you know what you should have done? You should have not posted in this thread in the first place. But you did. You presented your opinion, and now, when it is challenged, you retreat to "you're going to get me a negative record". No. Take responsibility for your own behavior.

And also use better arguments.

Clawdragons said:
I'm not trying to bait you into getting a negative record. I am trying to get you to understand why trying to understand a word solely as the sum of meaning of its constituent parts is ridiculous.

if transphobia doesn't mean "an irrational fear of transgender people" then Nyctophobia doesn't mean it's definition as well which is an irrational fear of the dark or darkness does it?

i am so sick of seeing this twisting of facts and words to suit some idiotic ideology or other bullshit.

When people make bad arguments, I call them out on it. It does not matter whether those arguments agree with my position or not.

no, just no. there is NO arguing or peaceful debate EVER when the topic of transgender is even mentioned. it is NEVER peaceful. or civil for that matter.

Do you know how much time I've spent trying to convince people that the "woman's right to choose what happens with her own body" argument is bad and ought not be used? Quite a bit. And yet I am definitely pro-choice.

funny, cause that sounds like your arguing against pro-choice. since that's the kind of argument i've heard from pro-lifers who are definitely against pro-choice.

If you don't think you can discuss this issue without devolving into insults and getting a record, do you know what you should have done? You should have not posted in this thread in the first place. But you did. You presented your opinion, and now, when it is challenged, you retreat to "you're going to get me a negative record". No. Take responsibility for your own behavior.

as i already said, there is NO way to argue or debate NAYTHING trans related. the instant anyone says ANYTHING they disagree with, they will try anything to silence that person.

which is exactly what mutisija and GDelscribe tried doing by calling me transphobic. that is the exact same thing the mainstream media does to try and scare critics and those that speak out against something into silence.

well, guess what. they are NOT going to silence me like that. not now, not EVER!

GDelscribe said:
and you're intentionally doing this with the express intent of making people mad. You more or less just admitted this in the post here.

i had no such intent from the beginning. i said something you and apparently mutisija disagree with and he...they...whatever beat you to the punch and called me transphobic first. no argument or anything would have happened if they hadn't started with that.

treos said:
if transphobia doesn't mean "an irrational fear of transgender people" then Nyctophobia doesn't mean it's definition as well which is an irrational fear of the dark or darkness does it?

And hydrophobia means fear of water.

Oh wait, no it doesn't.

funny, cause that sounds like your arguing against pro-choice. since that's the kind of argument i've heard from pro-lifers who are definitely against pro-choice.

Okay let me try to make this more clear because you seem to not have understood.

I am pro-choice.

The argument described is a pro-choice argument.

This does NOT mean that I support that argument. It is a bad, flawed argument.

This does NOT mean that I am pro-life. It means that I think the argument is bad.

I argue against the argument because it is a bad argument, not because I disagree with the conclusion.

This is the difference between being an ideologue and a critical thinker. If you can't imagine any circumstance wherein you would disagree with an argument that supports your position, you are an ideologue.

"The pixies that live in my armpits told me that six plus four equals ten!"

I don't have to disagree with the math to tell the person making that argument that his reasoning is wrong.

Edit:

as i already said, there is NO way to argue or debate NAYTHING trans related. the instant anyone says ANYTHING they disagree with, they will try anything to silence that person.

An excellent example of this would be the fact that you earlier in this thread tried to silence the people disagreeing with you.

On the trans issue some of you have picked up on, I will say that the technology could see use by or for the entire gender spectrum. For example, if you have a good understanding of the human genome, you could create a baby from scratch that does not fit neatly into a male or female category. But it's not just DNA you can change. You could also tweak the epigenetic settings, such as hormone levels, on an artificial womb to affect the baby's development. In fact, someone would have to make such decisions for it to work at all.

treos said:
i doubt this world is ready for such tech as is but then again, i also doubt this world gives a F and would jump at such an opportunity regardless of the risks.

Ready or not, here we come.

GDelscribe said:
On the actual topic this thread is supposed to be about though. Could this technology also be applied to use for general organ replacement? Such as for cancer victims, in any reasonable way?

This is a model that simplifies human organs and endocrine system as much as possible, but still seems to work. Transplantable organs could be harder. However, you don't need the full sized organ to get benefits from it. A tiny liver grown from your own cells could be better than no liver.

From that perspective, isn't there a high likelihood of accidental intersex disorder s or other congenital outliers such as ASD or Downs (nevermind physical attributes)? If it requires that level of detail and understanding isn't there a huge amount of room for error?

Also I know this is wierd but, does this fall into the same place as the Foregen thing?

http://www.foregen.org/

@Treos, you have in the past made passing comments about wishing Trans people didn't exist/have a place in the community and right now you started off by saying Trans people are completely invalid in their experiences and that they are "making it up." Because in your own words "

treos said:

because they think they're the opposite sex when they're not.

This is intentionally inflammatory dude, stop playing victim and acting like you've done nothing wrong. Nobody is "trying to silence you" nobody is shouting you down. Were telling you you said something awful, and I might add incorrect.

Medical Science on both sides of the fence (Physical and Psychological) HAVE in the past, and currently presently do, indisputably support that what trans people experience is real.

I mean if you have a rebuttal that is beyond "uwu they're silencing me so I don't have to listen" by all means go ahead. But trans people are real, what they experience is real, and the way you've acted in the past, and again here in the thread is basically out and out Transphobia. It means the same thing as Homophobia. Which I'm sure if you're gay you've experienced at least once in your life, and if you haven't you're very very lucky. But in the end, it doesn't change the fact that you're being trans phobic.

It is our right and our job to be critical, especially of people who would do harm to others out of fear and lack of understanding.

You also seem to continue to think its ok to intentionally carry on with misgendering and personal attack statements @Mutisija, which is also by definition transphobic. I mean, don't get me wrong I'm not trying to attack you but you're making a lot of aggressive statements and actions towards others here, when literally nobody has done anything to you.

We can stop now, thanks.

Alright so first at the topic this is very interesting and I hope this carries on to include vital organs, it could do plenty of good. Though like some skeptics I'm not sure we're ready for tech on this level the divide between the Religious, the naturalists(Those who would believe "Fake organs" would be wrong), and and those that support this tech will be quite wide.

-and now something that really don't want to dive into but will anyway because it will eat away at me all night if I don't.-

GDelscribe said:
@Treos, you have in the past made passing comments about wishing Trans people didn't exist/have a place in the community and right now you started off by saying Trans people are completely invalid in their experiences and that they are "making it up." Because in your own words "

I'll admit if he is trying to be reasonable to some tiny extent he is going about it wrong. However that doesn't change that the word transphobic no matter how justifiable it is applied is is 90% of the time an attempt to shame someone into silence. I'll be honest I think you and Mutisija are wrong in how your handling this situation and I think Treos is wrong for being antagonistic, aggressive, and somewhat anti-trans.

Medical Science on both sides of the fence (Physical and Psychological) HAVE in the past, and currently presently do, indisputably support that what trans people experience is real.

I mean if you have a rebuttal that is beyond "uwu they're silencing me so I don't have to listen" by all means go ahead. But trans people are real, what they experience is real, and the way you've acted in the past, and again here in the thread is basically out and out Transphobia. It means the same thing as Homophobia. Which I'm sure if you're gay you've experienced at least once in your life, and if you haven't you're very very lucky. But in the end, it doesn't change the fact that you're being trans phobic.

Yes. Trans people are indeed real. and what they experience is indeed real, there is no disputing this. However in one thing Treos is correct any time someone tries to talk about transgenderism it always always turns into a shit storm with both parties being... Abrasive is the kindest word I can use I guess. And therefore no one learns anything. Nothing is gained other then aggression, closed mindedness and a reason to go into a bloody echo chamber.

You really want to get somewhere? Disassociate the person from the ideas and attack the ideas, if you hate on someone because of one ideal they hold then your are blinded from the rest of the ideals they hold that you might actually agree with.

For example I've seen you say some stuff I don't agree with but I also see you say other things I agree with. I don't dislike but you do say things I don't like. In the end you have my respect nothing more nothing less. If I were a bit more competent in my words and knowledge I would have a debate with you.

Frankly I want to quote and pick apart your whole comment but I'm going end it there cause its just going to devolve into ranting and that's not good for the topic or the discussion.

Edit:

Ratte said:
We can stop now, thanks.

Okay. Didn't see your comment before posting that.

EDIT: Removing all address of specific points to avoid prolonging argument

I see no reason why transgenders would be any happier or unhappier about this potential future tech than anyone else, or indeed why that would even be relevant?

Well. In short, not just for trans people but consider someone who has an issue with their womb or other genitourinary issues. Or just in general being able to make necessary parts to replace lost ones or assist in transitioning for trans people which is why it would be brought up in the first place. I mean. Imagine how good that would be for someone who would regularly be unable to have children now being able to facilitate that?

Its amazing really.

Foregen (great name btw) is easier than the other stuff we've talked about. They want to restore a very small and flat piece of skin. Making sure it has nerves, is properly attached, and doesn't look terrible are also important. You wouldn't want to damage it even more with a botched foreskin patch job, right? But it seems like it could be accomplished within a few years. Remember, there have been whole penis transplants. That does not require synthetic tissue, but it does involve grafting parts onto existing nerves and tubes.

As far as I know, the female equivalent is further along than Foregen:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lab-grown-vaginas-implanted-successfully-in-4-teenagers/
http://transascity.org/the-truth-about-the-lab-grown-vaginas/

The second link notes that existing vaginal/vulvar cells were coaxed into growing the tissue. That leads into some interesting bioengineering issues for assigned males who would want to get "authentic tissue" grafted. Maybe it would require gene therapy to work.

That actually sounds amazing thanks for the link!

though this artificial womb is just a series of test trays pumping fluids around with a bit of tissues slapped here and there. its not intended to be placed in living people or anything. its a test tray system built for simulating the functionality of uterus, ovaries and all that shit for safely testing how medicines would affect on that junk.

we are not even remotely close to building actual artificial wombs capable of growing children yet

Mutisija said:
we are not even remotely close to building actual artificial wombs capable of growing children yet

I did not say this device was an artificial womb. Artificial wombs are inevitable however. This device shows us that a complex biological system can be simplified and replicated. The model can be improved for their purposes and shows us how the creation of an artificial womb could work using a blood substitute, real hormones, a miniature liver, etc.

When I say artificial womb, I mean one that is not inside a woman's body and could contain machine parts, just like EVATAR. There have been successful uterus transplants using donor tissue:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-u-s-woman-with-uterus-transplant-looks-forward-to-pregnancy/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uterus_transplantation

That's a separate subject, as is growing a uterus for transplantation. Making a complete artificial womb that would work outside of a human body also requires creating a liver, endocrine system, "heart", etc.

As for how long "remotely close" is, nobody can say. I expect it to be around in less than 20 years. The first working artificial wombs might be developed in secret.

Mutisija said:
we are not even remotely close to building actual artificial wombs capable of growing children yet

Lance_Armstrong said:
As for how long "remotely close" is, nobody can say. I expect it to be around in less than 20 years. The first working artificial wombs might be developed in secret.

I guess it time for WW3 then.

Ignore me.

Just making a joke about war advancing technology.

Honestly I say 20 years is both a fair and unfair estimation, I mean technologically speaking we are more advanced then that, which means we could have a proper artificial womb in 10 years, BUT you have to take in account we are a foolish species who cant even get our act together, so 20 years is a fair estimation, I would personally say closer to 30 but there are some amazing surprises.

Mankind invented this science. mankind invented cars and look what happened there, we invented computers, we invented guns, explosives, mobile phones, mobile phones especially, everyone's got at least one.
There is no stopping technology, there is no stopping science.

One day humans an animals may well merge.

But think about this, with changing physiology will become changing mentality, sexuality so the world won't likely end in a giant pile of thrusting fur, scales and feathers.

GDelscribe said:
assist in transitioning for trans people which is why it would be brought up in the first place.

(I know this will benefit other people as well but I want to focus a little on trans)

I'm sorry but have to say. And I may be confused on how exactly this work but I assume we're talking about growing female reproductive organs and implanting them.

I'm not sure how this will help trans people, unless the artificial womb stays outside the body. OR and this would be much harder and lead to more complications I believe, we start implanting female pelvises into trans women.

Because bare in mind a trans woman still has the skeletal structure of a male therefore the hip are too narrow for child birthing. And like I said I think surgery to replace a male pelvis with a female one would lead to complications(I might have to research this a little cause I'm sure someone has tried it, but I'm pretty sure there are some serious problems to consider.)

Granted there is always cesarean but I believe that should always be a last option if at all possible.

United_Gamers said:
I'm not sure how this will help trans people, unless the artificial womb stays outside the body. OR and this would be much harder and lead to more complications I believe, we start implanting female pelvises into trans women.

Because bare in mind a trans woman still has the skeletal structure of a male therefore the hip are too narrow for child birthing. And like I said I think surgery to replace a male pelvis with a female one would lead to complications(I might have to research this a little cause I'm sure someone has tried it, but I'm pretty sure there are some serious problems to consider.)

Granted there is always cesarean but I believe that should always be a last option if at all possible.

The artificial womb would exist outside the body. Why do the hard work of putting it inside the non-female body? You want to feel the pain of childbirth?

Females have another option. It's a uterine transplant from a donor. The procedure is risky but has resulted in a pregnancy. It's not clear if a uterus grown from one's own cells would be easier to create and transplant than just using an artificial womb.

For extremely effective transitioning, gene therapy might cause slight changes in skeletal structure beyond HRT, but not completely handle the problem since sizes and shapes are mostly fixed from birth. The pelvis swap is not desirable with current technology and would be highly invasive, but improvements to surgery could make it feasible to replace many of the bones in the body decades from now. If gene therapy and hormone therapy can cause superficial changes, organ printing and other methods can handle replacement of genitalia and bones.

If replacing the body piece by piece is not safe or effective, transplanting the brain might be a workaround. This requires a dead donor or growing a whole body from scratch. Growing from scratch could mean using any DNA you want, meaning you get to look like a supermodel. It might require gene therapy to alter the genome of the brain to match the grown body before transfer. Finally, there is mind uploading without surgery. That is more speculative than anything else I suggested.

Lance_Armstrong said:
The artificial womb would exist outside the body. Why do the hard work of putting it inside the non-female body? You want to feel the pain of childbirth?

I was going from that perspective because that what it sounded like was being suggested. And don't get me wrong there are some people who want the child and it be as natural as possible. I mean look at the people who do in home natural birth. So I don't think it would be unreasonable to think that certain trans gender people would want almost the same.

Again I went from this perspective thinking that growing and transplanting organs was the idea. If wrong I would like to be corrected.

Lance_Armstrong said:
Females have another option. It's a uterine transplant from a donor. The procedure is risky but has resulted in a pregnancy. It's not clear if a uterus grown from one's own cells would be easier to create and transplant than just using an artificial womb.

This true. I once remember reading something on facebook about a man getting a transplant from a donor(Descended of course.) believe it pretty much fully functional too. Either way risky like you said but possible.

Lance_Armstrong said:
For extremely effective transitioning, gene therapy might cause slight changes in skeletal structure beyond HRT, but not completely handle the problem since sizes and shapes are mostly fixed from birth. The pelvis swap is not desirable with current technology and would be highly invasive, but improvements to surgery could make it feasible to replace many of the bones in the body decades from now. If gene therapy and hormone therapy can cause superficial changes, organ printing and other methods can handle replacement of genitalia and bones.

Huh I didn't know that, but still you confirm that its pretty much set. Also no question that a pelvic swap being undesirable, I can't even picture that level invasiveness I can stomach. And that's coming from someone who doesn't pay much heed to such things.

Lance_Armstrong said:
If replacing the body piece by piece is not safe or effective, transplanting the brain might be a workaround. This requires a dead donor or growing a whole body from scratch. Growing from scratch could mean using any DNA you want, meaning you get to look like a supermodel. It might require gene therapy to alter the genome of the brain to match the grown body before transfer. Finally, there is mind uploading without surgery. That is more speculative than anything else I suggested.

I can't remember what exactly it was I read or watch but it suggested no matter how advanced we are a brain transplant is impossible. And I believe I mean we have a hard enough time as it is just trying to transplant a hand, brain transplant would be like 100x more difficult I think.

And the mind upload. That sounds really far off to me. Possible but not anywhere in our lifetime. Not sure I would agree with that anyway. Lol might sound kinda weird and stupid but growing replacement parts I agree with, changing bodies all together that just sounds weird to me.

United_Gamers said:
I can't remember what exactly it was I read or watch but it suggested no matter how advanced we are a brain transplant is impossible. And I believe I mean we have a hard enough time as it is just trying to transplant a hand, brain transplant would be like 100x more difficult I think.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2016/04/time-soviet-scientist-created-two-headed-dog/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/12112051/First-head-transplant-successfully-carried-out-on-monkey-claims-surgeon.html

It has been done successfully with heads. Success means that they lived after the procedure... for hours or up to 4 weeks.

Lance_Armstrong said:
www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2016/04/time-soviet-scientist-created-two-headed-dog/
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/12112051/First-head-transplant-successfully-carried-out-on-monkey-claims-surgeon.html

It has been done successfully with heads. Success means that they lived after the procedure... for hours or up to 4 weeks.

:/ long way to go before that's worthwhile then.

Making your own anthro waifu or husbando just got easier AGAIN

Paper

Premature lambs kept alive in 'plastic bag' womb

Animals Set Survival Record Inside Artificial Womb

It's not an egg-to-birth artificial womb, but it's a good step.

What you need for waifu or husbando:

1. Ability to reprogram a genome and understand what the likely results of genetic edits will be (e.g. creating a catgirl or scalie humanoid from a human baseline, or creating an uplifted) animal)
2. Ability to create synthetic DNA from a digital sequence
3. Ability to create a synthetic egg and fertilized embryo from scratch
4. Ability to gestate the embyro in an artificial womb until birth
5. Ability to keep the newborn alive and healthy with little outside intervention (this may require next-generation preventative health care)
6. Patience

The other approach would involve giving an advanced gene therapy to an already living human being, including yourself.

Today's research partially addresses #4.

3-D printed ovary allows infertile mouse to mate and give birth

3D-printed ovaries allow infertile mice to give birth

It oculd be a good step towards making an artificial womb. Theoretically you could create a 3D printed disembodied womb using synthetic DNA for a creature that has never existed. Then keep it alive and working without it needing a body.

after reading this thread i no longer want to make my own waifu.

fewrahuxo said:
after reading this thread i no longer want to make my own waifu.

learn it ᕙ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ᕗ harder. make her (ง •̀_•́)ง better. grow her ᕦ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ᕤ faster.

raise ur ヽ༼♥ل͜♥༽ﾉ waifu (from an embryo)

Eyy, that's pretty good. Let's see how it goes.

Holy shit batman. So we can manufacture egg cells?

Demesejha said:
Holy shit batman. So we can manufacture egg cells?

Scientists Have Created the First Artificial Embryo Without Using an Egg or Sperm
Scientists create live animals from artificial eggs in 'remarkable' breakthrough
Scientists create artificial human eggs and sperm
Mouse egg cells made entirely in the lab give rise to healthy offspring
Making babies without eggs may be possible, say scientists

(multiple studies covered above)

First Editing of Human Embryos Performed in United States

Technology that allows alteration of genes in a human embryo has been used for the first time in the United States, according to Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) in Portland, which carried out the research.

The OHSU research is believed to have broken new ground both in the number of embryos experimented upon and by demonstrating it is possible to safely and efficiently correct defective genes that cause inherited diseases, according to Technology Review, which first reported the news.

None of the embryos were allowed to develop for more than a few days, according to the report.

First Human Embryos Edited in U.S.

It looks like we’re one step closer to creating genetically modified humans in a lab

First U.S. team to gene-edit human embryos revealed

We've been doing it since the 1920s. The Eugenics movement was the USs idea in the first place. We just succeeded this time. *slow clap*

Creepy

But I'll watch
"The real Island of Dr Moreau Documentary"
first, when it does happen.

kamimatsu said:
We've been doing it since the 1920s. The Eugenics movement was the USs idea in the first place. We just succeeded this time. *slow clap*

Eugenicists made a lot of big claims with very little evidence, before even the structure of DNA was discovered. But even today, years before germline editing takes off, "eugenics" can be considered an accepted practice in some forms:

How DNA testing transformed matchmaking in Orthodox Jewish community

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis has also been available for decades now. Specific couples that are likely to produce children with genetic diseases benefit the most from this.

Now we have results coming in that could lead to editing potential children to change a variety of traits. I say bring it on. Should a life form with a particular genetic sequence be banned because it contains edited DNA? We already exercise control over genetic outcomes by our personal preferences, or by government bans on incest or having sex with people deemed mentally unfit to ocnsent.

People should be free to edit embryos as they see fit. If governments want to restrict it, they should only ban edits that are knowingly made in order to cause an offspring harm. For example, an edit that causes a child to feel extreme pain at the slightest touch or movement. Creating anthros should not be banned, but you can be assured that it will be banned and forced underground so that only a few perverted millionaires or billionaires can create anthros and get away with it.

Depends what traits get edited. You can bet a lot of harmless traits will go extinct because some people just don't like them.

kamimatsu said:
Depends what traits get edited. You can bet a lot of harmless traits will go extinct because some people just don't like them.

No harm, no foul.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nk46d0ST8VI
anyone remember this episode ?

hmmm... so i take it, this could be another step towards irl anthros potentially?

treos said:
hmmm... so i take it, this could be another step towards irl anthros potentially?

Any anthro that gets made will use the human genome as a base with probably over 95% unchanged human DNA. For example, the chimpanzee genome is about 98.8% similar to the human genome. So germline editing of a human embryo without damaging it much is highly relevant to making IRL anthros.

stalkerd said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nk46d0ST8VI
anyone remember this episode ?

"Your time will come, norm!" So close... normies GTFO.

That is about gene therapy, not germline editing. It would be very difficult or impossible to get those results with just gene therapy and no surgery. Germline editing could produce any results you can code for.

Lance_Armstrong said:
Any anthro that gets made will use the human genome as a base with probably over 95% unchanged human DNA. For example, the chimpanzee genome is about 98.8% similar to the human genome. So germline editing of a human embryo without damaging it much is highly relevant to making IRL anthros.

"Your time will come, norm!" So close... normies GTFO.

That is about gene therapy, not germline editing. It would be very difficult or impossible to get those results with just gene therapy and no surgery. Germline editing could produce any results you can code for.

lol
ah ok
well might end up like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivisector:_Beast_Within
or this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splice_(film)

Full study:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23305.html

News article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/science/gene-editing-human-embryos.html

There are fish that live for hundreds of years, some shark species I think. The genes that give them their long life could be given to humans, there would be a lot of willing subjects, whether it would work or just give someone a weird and horrible death would be a matter of speculation.
I have also read about laboratory grown private parts which can be grown to order, whatever size or shape.

rhyolite said:
I have also read about laboratory grown private parts which can be grown to order, whatever size or shape.

citation plz
this sounds like a multi-billiontrillion $$$ industry

Munkelzahn said:
citation plz
this sounds like a multi-billiontrillion $$$ industry

From this post,

The lab-grown penis: approaching a medical milestone
Doctors implant lab-grown vagina

Estimated availability of lab-grown penis transplants: 2019.

How to Grow an Artificial Penis
Lab-grown testicles give new hope to wounded vets
Let's use humanoid robots to grow transplant organs

We also discussed Foregen, a non-profit pursuing foreskin regeneration research that is planning to go for-profit.

"grown to order, whatever size or shape" is not true yet. Nobody we know of has funded their own lab-grown penis transplant, and there is only speculation about getting a specific size or shape.

rhyolite said:
There are fish that live for hundreds of years, some shark species I think. The genes that give them their long life could be given to humans, there would be a lot of willing subjects, whether it would work or just give someone a weird and horrible death would be a matter of speculation.

Gene therapy is not germline editing. It is a lot easier to influence the genetic makeup of a tiny embryo than an already full grown human. The problem is that people will not look kindly on creating designer babies, especially ones that grow into anthros.

Yes, there are animals that are considered immortal. A more likely approach to anti-aging in humans involves repairing damage.

Lance_Armstrong said:
"grown to order, whatever size or shape" is not true yet. Nobody we know of has funded their own lab-grown penis transplant, and there is only speculation about getting a specific size or shape.

i can already see this becoming popular once possible >.> and reasonably cheap. right, fenoxo?

treos said:
i can already see this becoming popular once possible >.>

I kind of doubt that there are a lot of people who would be willing to get their natural one chopped off, just so they can replace it with one that may or may not work.

Genjar said:
I kind of doubt that there are a lot of people who would be willing to get their natural one chopped off, just so they can replace it with one that may or may not work.

Once a few hundred people get it done safely, others will follow.

Munkelzahn said:
citation plz
this sounds like a multi-billiontrillion $$$ industry

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/oct/04/penis-transplants-anthony-atala-interview

"Neither Atala nor Yoo will be pushed for a date for the first test in man, saying only that they’d expect it to occur within five years. “In the end we’re aiming for the entire size of the organ,” says Atala. “But in reality our first target is going to be partial replacement of the organ.”

In a decade you will be able to order a monster.

I am a little surprised that Vincent from the CBS television show Beauty and the Beast has not been brought up yet.

Sure, it was 1987: the shoulder pads were obscene, and the writing approached that of a cornball soap-opera (I'm looking at you George RR Martin), but a young Ron Perlman gave us a deft and subtle portrayal of a noble, fierce soul in his characterization of Vincent.

His was the first 'anthro' I fell a little bit in love with.

Sharp_Coyote said:
I am a little surprised that Vincent from the CBS television show Beauty and the Beast has not been brought up yet.

Sure, it was 1987: the shoulder pads were obscene, and the writing approached that of a cornball soap-opera (I'm looking at you George RR Martin), but a young Ron Perlman gave us a deft and subtle portrayal of a noble, fierce soul in his characterization of Vincent.

His was the first 'anthro' I fell a little bit in love with.

too bad he's str8

I have heard some talk about sex robots reducing human life this would solve that.
And being able to change or add traits is absolutely awesome.

Some of you seemed interested in genetic "superpowers". Well...

My body, my genes!

He is such a sci-bro there is an interview with him on redbull.com

Here's another guy trying to cure his HIV with an untested gene therapy.

China’s gene-edited babies will push bioethics into a dark new era

It was going to happen sooner or later.

A group of scientists in China claims that they have helped bring to life two genetically-edited babies. The goal was to modify the twin girls’ genes in order to prevent HIV infection and avoid AIDS. The scientists claim they were successful in this effort, according to reports in Associated Press and MIT Tech Review.

The claims haven’t yet been independently verified. But if the researchers have really gone against internationally recognized voluntary guidelines and done what they say, both science and bioethics are now entering unchartered territory.

It finally happened. Maybe.

This does not bring us much closer to RealFurry™. In fact, this could have been done years ago, and the outcry may lead to restrictive legislation in multiple countries.

Watch for:

• The Western political and legislative response to this.
• The Chinese response, since China has been friendly to this kind of research, i.e. they look the other way.
• New gene editing techniques causing fewer unintended mutations and destroying less embryos. If they don't cause unintended mutations, part of the ethical argument against using these techniques to bring human embryos to term falls apart.
• The next individual or group to try this... publicly.
• Any efforts to hybridize or transform non-human animals into something new. If it's not a human, almost nobody will notice. Even uplift efforts will get less attention than (edit: human) embryo genome editing.

Lance_Armstrong said:

• Any efforts to hybridize or transform non-human animals into something new. If it's not a human, almost nobody will notice. Even uplift efforts will get less attention than embryo genome editing.

Well, they're already hybridizing glowy-jellyfish into plants and muscle-cow into mice.

Furrin_Gok said:
Well, they're already hybridizing glowy-jellyfish into plants and muscle-cow into mice.

...and I know that's all mostly a long tangent from anthro waifus and husbandos, but it all stems from the idea that I don't mind waiting if I can live long enough to see it happen.

Munkelzahn said:
too bad he's str8

In the furry world no one is str8.

An ‘epic scientific misadventure’: NIH head Francis Collins ponders fallout from CRISPR baby study

First CRISPR babies: six questions that remain

It's been about a week now. Everyone is spooked, and there will be more surveillance of scientists in the field. However, these techniques are still going to become cheaper and easier, to the point where you could do it in your basement. Furthermore, there is the possibility of creating an embryo from scratch, and incubating it in an artificial womb. Will they be able to keep the genie inside the bottle? I doubt it.

China Confirms Second Woman Pregnant with Gene-Edited Baby

Chinese authorities have confirmed that a second woman is pregnant with a baby that had its genes edited by the scientist He Jiankui.

China has indicated that his work was illegal and that they intend to press charges. He was employed at the Southern University of Science and Technology (SUSTech) in Shenzhen at the time of his research.

Human genome editing using CRISPR is illegal in most countries including China. Scientists say the technology which allows the removal and replacement of genes with precision is still too new to be used on humans.

China was assumed to be a safe haven for this kind of work. Maybe it still will be, but it won't be officially sanctioned. At least for now. Even if it is illegal, China could become the gene editing capital due to having lots of scientists, lax regulations, and an attitude that encourages profit over ethics.

How to Stop Rogue Gene-Editing of Human Embryos?

Some experts say the best way to block misguided uses of embryo editing is coordinated action by all public and private players involved in new scientific technologies, including regulatory agencies, patent offices, funding organizations and liability insurers. In a recent New England Journal of Medicine article, R. Alta Charo, a bioethicist at University of Wisconsin-Madison, recommended a “comprehensive ecosystem of public and private entities that can restrain the rogues among us.”

"The rogues among us" has a nice ring to it. Also, they forgot to list law enforcement agencies.

Scientists who need to beg or lie for their grant money and clinical trial are one thing. Fertility clinics may also be able to perform gene editing on the side. Eventually, lone wolves in their basements will get in on the act.

While the prospect of furry/catgirl waifu within my lifetime excites me greatly, the development of so many diverse technologies within a narrow timeframe could spell dissaster for us.

We could have a veritable "technocalipse" or severe prolonged future shock.

Apropos CRISPR babies, only an incredibly naive or backwards country wouldnt conduct such experiments in secret. If the potential reward is the creation of a veriteble ubermensch, who wouldn't be willing to break a few eggs to make an omlet.
Though the major problem is that the ubers would have to live out their life for us to see any major potential flaws/kinks, which could mean 100+ years if we enhance the lifespan too.

The future all in all looks both promising and frightening, it will be an interesting century to live through.

Haljkljavahlibrz said:
While the prospect of furry/catgirl waifu within my lifetime excites me greatly, the development of so many diverse technologies within a narrow timeframe could spell dissaster for us.

We could have a veritable "technocalipse" or severe prolonged future shock.

Apropos CRISPR babies, only an incredibly naive or backwards country wouldnt conduct such experiments in secret. If the potential reward is the creation of a veriteble ubermensch, who wouldn't be willing to break a few eggs to make an omlet.
Though the major problem is that the ubers would have to live out their life for us to see any major potential flaws/kinks, which could mean 100+ years if we enhance the lifespan too.

The future all in all looks both promising and frightening, it will be an interesting century to live through.

We're seeing the very beginning of the chaos. May we live in interesting times.

Lance_Armstrong said:
We're seeing the very beginning of the chaos. May we live in interesting times.

Whoever came up with that curse was a sage for the ages :)

The opposition:

Eugenics-Engineered Babies’ Brains Changed by CRISPR

There should be an immediate, legally enforceable moratorium on human germ-line engineering experiments until international laws and regulations can be enacted. Human enhancement germ-line engineering should be permanently outlawed, and laws passed denying patent or other intellectual property protections for any scientist or biotech company breaching those protocols.

Wow. That opinion piece reads to me as alarmist, bordering on hysterical.

Genetic engineering *is* dangerous, and what that Chinese doctor did *was* unethical. But it's a wide gap between that and an immediate international moratorium on all human genetic engineering. Moreover, you'll never put a stop to it through legislation, you'll just drive it underground so that above-board geneticists and medical professionals will be caught unaware by future problems down the road as gene-edited humans enter the general population.

You know, more than 10,000 human lives were lost this year to drunk driving. We should implement an immediate, legally enforceable moratorium on alcoho--*snrk* I'm sorry, I just can't continue that with a straight face.

Moratorium on CRISPR gene-edited pregnancies? That I can fully support. Slam the door shut on the entire field? Good luck and have fun with that, especially when Dr. He had approval from the Chinese government, and cooperation with an American scientist, even if the rest of the field at large considered the whole matter unconscionable.

This isn't a tech that is "coming", right? This is "here". It is now. Pandora's box has been opened, and it can't just be shut. What we can do is try to learn as much as we can, as safely as we can, and mitigate the dipshits who're looking to get rich or make Kahnian superbabies.