Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Science

'Miracle' Baby Opens Debate Over Possible Use of Centuries-old Sperm (theguardian.com) 57

Technology allows sperm to be frozen longer than legal 50-year limit but poses medical and ethical questions. From a report: A change of law has paved the way for more babies to be born from sperm frozen up to 50 years ago, but experts say there is no scientific reason why sperm hundreds of years old cannot be used. This week, a boy was born using sperm frozen in 1996, collected when his father was diagnosed, aged 21, with Hodgkin lymphoma, in case his treatment caused infertility. Described as a "miracle" by his now 47-year-old father, Peter Hickles, the baby is close to holding the record for the longest gap between sperm collection and birth -- he was beaten by a baby born in the US using a 27-year-old sample.

When Hickles' sperm was frozen, he thought it would only be viable for 10 years. Although experts say the technology for freezing sperm has been around for decades, prior to a law change in the summer, gametes (eggs and sperm) could only be stored for 10 years, with occasional exceptions made for people with fertility problems. This has now been extended to 55 years, but Allan Pacey, a professor of andrology at the University of Sheffield, said there was no medical reason for this limit. "The legal 55-year limit has nothing to do with the shelf life of sperm, or for any other scientific reasons. It's more to do with what parliamentarians felt was right for society. But since frozen sperm are effectively in suspended animation, once they are frozen I don't see why they couldn't be kept for hundreds of years if the law allowed it."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Miracle' Baby Opens Debate Over Possible Use of Centuries-old Sperm

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Gonna be kinda hard to hit up the dead father to pay child support. Perhaps if you want to have your sperm frozen you have to also have an attached sperm trust fund to support any future crotch goblins some crazy decides to have decades later. Its only "fair" to the birthing person you support your future sperm development. /s
    • Gonna be kinda hard to hit up the dead father to pay child support.

      Your estate is probably still fair game. Forever.

      • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

        Gonna be kinda hard to hit up the dead father to pay child support.

        Your estate is probably still fair game. Forever.

        AFAIK, after probate is closed, the estate is considered settled, and there's no entity left to sue. Ostensibly you could sue the heirs, but in practice, good luck getting probate reopened. It's not likely to succeed. And if the pregnancy were started after the person died, any such attempt would almost certainly be quashed by a pre-trial motion as moot.

        • AFAIK, after probate is closed, the estate is considered settled, and there's no entity left to sue. Ostensibly you could sue the heirs, but in practice, good luck getting probate reopened. It's not likely to succeed. And if the pregnancy were started after the person died, any such attempt would almost certainly be quashed by a pre-trial motion as moot.

          I think you can. Not saying it would be easy, and probably only applies in practical terms to large estates, but probate is not always final.

          https://www.law.cornell.edu/cf... [cornell.edu]

          • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

            AFAIK, after probate is closed, the estate is considered settled, and there's no entity left to sue. Ostensibly you could sue the heirs, but in practice, good luck getting probate reopened. It's not likely to succeed. And if the pregnancy were started after the person died, any such attempt would almost certainly be quashed by a pre-trial motion as moot.

            I think you can. Not saying it would be easy, and probably only applies in practical terms to large estates, but probate is not always final.

            No, it not always final, but there's a fairly high threshold for the sorts of mistakes that would cause it to be reopened, because once probate is closed, people assume that the assets are theirs and start using them or disposing of them. It isn't really feasible to claw back assets for an arbitrary period of time.

            As your link noted, it is largely limited to situations where an heir mentioned in the will wasn't notified about probate because of a mistake (or possibly an unmentioned spouse in a community pr

            • None of those extraordinary situations apply when the heir didn't exist at the time of probate.

              While I'm inclined to agree with you I don't think that this has ever been tested in the real world. I'd hope no legal encumbrances are attached to sperm either but I know that is far from true.

              • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

                None of those extraordinary situations apply when the heir didn't exist at the time of probate.

                While I'm inclined to agree with you I don't think that this has ever been tested in the real world. I'd hope no legal encumbrances are attached to sperm either but I know that is far from true.

                For the purposes of wills, AFAIK, no state has any laws requiring that the deceased list all of the children who are not going to receive money. The absence of that person in the will means that the heir gets nothing. They could contest the will, but they would have to have legitimate grounds to do so, which someone who the parent knew nothing about could not possibly have. The exception might be back-dated child support or something, but only if filed before the statute of limitations.

                California law is

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Imagine a dystopic future where famous/rich/influential/sexy people have donated and are advertised as donors. 200 years from now women going for frozen semen from musk, dicaprio, or Stephen hawkings special edition (sperm without his disease thanks to genetic editing , yes I know he died and left none behind). It becoming social norm below competitive pressure to go for successful people semen instead of the husband/parent.
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • It's almost the case that you don't need frozen sperm, any DNA sample can be made into sperm or even a clone.

        Leonardo da Vinci is known to have used his fingertip in his paintings. Chances are his DNA can eventually be recovered.

        How much am I bid for a Leonardo da Vinci clone?

    • by burni2 ( 1643061 )

      As frozen sperm is basically one part of that what will make up the childs DNA, it's bascially a long molecular chain in the sperms head.

      And DNA data storage is not flawless as you might know, because when the program for the selfreplicating and organizing cells is off by a slight amount you get "special" babies.

      Normally sperm is in a just-in-time cycle: abundant and unused sperm (~99,999999999999999999999999...9999999999%) will flow back out of the vagina or if not inserted in a vagina will also be ejected

    • by fermion ( 181285 )
      Strictly speaking, there is no reason to have these laws. On the other hand, we know humans lie and some of the laws are to protect us from the lies that are hard to test.

      For instance, it should be possible to set up a system where we can sell human spare parts. You need a liver, I will give up part of mine for a lot of money. But it would be hard to validate all transactions were minimally consensual.

      Another example is selling babies. This would solve any number of issues we have, if a women could just

      • What do you mean there is no way to validate it? You can check the DNA sequence. Speaking of which, it might be better to just store the DNA sequence on a computer and then print the DNA strand. Of course we still don't have the tech to print DNA that is millions of bases long .. but we will someday. I mean it can even be done today for an insane amount of money by ligating together strands that are 1000 bases long.

        • by fermion ( 181285 )
          We are talking theoretical versus practical. All the examples given are theoretically practical, but practically too easy to hack. Of course there are going to be documents attesting to the providence. But how to validate those documents. The antiquing world is full of examples of how easy it is to fake documents.
  • If I knew I was coming to the end of my run, I'd be very tempted to leave a copy of this story sitting on my desk, and a two litre bottle of some anonymous fluid in my freezer.

  • Scientifically this might be possible. In the real world, this may not be great. We've already homogenized plants. Is that a good idea for humans?

    There is no doubt in my mind that there will be businesses that offer "The best sperm of the best people".

    I imagine a future of little Elon's. Want a baby Putin? You can have an Arnold Schwarzenegger from 1980, 1990 or 2000!

    Are you really brothers from another mother if your original sperm was all bought from the same shop?

    --
    It's not a bad idea to be singl

    • I’m sorry, what are you? Apple or android?
    • by e3m4n ( 947977 )
      combined with CRISPR what could go wrong? Seen Gattaca?
    • You can have an Arnold Schwarzenegger from 1980, 1990 or 2000!

      While I have no doubt he was slinging his sperm around back then, how exactly do you think you're going to get a hold of it? Invent a time machine and get friendly with young Arnold?

    • by Reziac ( 43301 ) *

      That's not the point at all. Rather, to recover genes and traits that have otherwise been lost. We've been doing this in livestock for 50 years. I myself own frozen semen from dogs born in 1978 and 1982, to preserve high quality traits that are now rare in the living population.

      It's a banked resource and a hedge against future loss, not a means to rule the world.

      It is expensive, it requires expert handling, and unless you do nothing but jack off and process semen (like we do with dairy bulls), the potential

  • I'll see myself out.

  • by King_TJ ( 85913 ) on Friday October 28, 2022 @02:58PM (#63006845) Journal

    I see pretty much NO real benefit to creating a baby from sperm donated long, long ago? Putting a legal limit on it is the right thing to do, IMO.

    As someone else said already here; What about impact to the natural course of evolution? If we've started evolving out certain characteristics because they're undesirable, why bring a new kid into the world who retains those properties? "Here kid, start with an evolutionary disadvantage!"

    But more practically speaking? Why would a mother-to-be want to use sperm from someone who already passed away? Presumably, medical science would have advanced by then so things it was unable to determine about that individual while he was alive would be known for people alive at the time she wants to have the baby.

    • But more practically speaking? Why would a mother-to-be want to use sperm from someone who already passed away?

      I can give you a fantastic real life example of this, although I think the time spent between harvesting the sperm and birth of the baby was perhaps 10 years. Hong Kong action star Alexander Fu Sheng married a Hong Kong singer who went by the name Jenny in the late 70s. Fu Sheng was concerned that his movie stunts would damage his testicles, so he had sperm frozen just in case. He died in an automobile accident in 1983. Approximately 10 years later, Jenny, who never remarried, had a mysterious pregn

    • Evolution is stupid anyway. Human intelligent selection is better than evolution.

    • I don't know how they can say there is no medical reason not to use sperm that's hundreds of years old. Have they ever tried it? No. Should they? Not with a human because they don't really know and it's not like sperm is particularly valuable. Parents have a duty to give their children the best start in life.

      As for me, I've taken organ donor off my driver's license because what if my nards get implanted in a mentally ill F2M tranny who uses my testicles to impregnate a M2F tranny with a womb and ovaries

      • As for me, I've taken organ donor off my driver's license because what if my nards get implanted in a mentally ill F2M tranny

        Judging by the personality traits you display here in your post, a more ethical solution to this dilemma would be for you to get castrated. That way, society benefits, by you losing the ability to spawn offspring with personality traits they would inherit from you.

    • As someone else said already here; What about impact to the natural course of evolution? If we've started evolving out certain characteristics because they're undesirable, why bring a new kid into the world who retains those properties?

      That is a disgusting way to interpret this. We're not talking about combining DNA from Homo Australopithecus with current DNA. We're talking about a person a few decades ago donating sperm to fend against disease. Shame on you!

  • This is truly a miracle.... if by miracle you mean science. I mean, science _is_ pretty incredible so I can understand how one might confuse the two. The easy way to tell them apart is that one is real, while the other is not.
  • The best way to do it is to store the sequence code, not the sperm. Then synthesize the strand. Todays tech can only reliably synthesize 1000 letters at a time (out of a couple billion) but you can theoretically stitch them together (granted stitching together millions of strands is a major pain.) Still, in 50 years, we should be able to print chromosome length DNA strands.

  • We all know that historical men and women were more robust than current Gen-Z, so here we go!

  • I've been storing sperm for nearly 65 years and it is still quite viable.
    And, it is not frozen; so, there is no potential damage.

    Furthermore, I am willing to provide extremely cheap services executing fertilization with no need to remove any eggs from the host!

    Why chance potential genetic diseases when you can get proven stock with no (known) threats?
  • It says the sperm was collected in 1966 when the father was 21. His father is not 47 now. He's 77 (56+21).

"Inquiry is fatal to certainty." -- Will Durant

Working...