Men lose throne (again)

If you are tired of men, consider the possibility that they may altogether disappear in 125,000 years. That was the bottomline of geneticist Bryan Sykes in his book Adam’s Curse A Future Without Men (W.W. Norton, NY: 2004). I discussed and commented on his work at length in a column entitled "Y-less Days Ahead" last year. He cited, among other reasons, the dramatic 30 percent or so drop in the percentage of men with a sperm count of 100 million/millimeter from the 40s to the 90s. In the old-fashioned chromosomal world, this could have sent many eggs weeping at the prospect of an eventual sperm death since sperm, whether delivered through sex or with tweezers/droppers in the lab, has always provided that "electro-chemical" kick to get an egg going, i.e., to divide and differentiate, forming an embryo and if all goes well, a baby.

While I really do not think the loss of the role of the once-coveted sperm power should make the front page since women can always make the men think they are still of some worth in other ways, this could have been bad news as well for geneticists working on stem cells. Since the discovery in genetics that there is such a thing as stem cells that can be extracted from embryos, those master cells that contain the cues and switches for them to form the different parts of organs, we have taken a second look at the human embryo, right at that point when it is only about 100 cells (a human being has trillions) and considered how we could extract the stem cells from it that could save lives. This is because those stem cells can "grow" us the new body parts that could replace the ones that threaten to die on us. This way, the DNA that is used will be from the patient needing the stem cell, and most likely will not be rejected by his/her body. This is known as therapeutic cloning. But if there is a real source of concern over the supply and health of sperms, how could we now have the human embryos which will have the stem cells we are counting on to save us from our diseased selves?

Pending sperm death is only part of the woes of stem cell research. Another, bigger part is ethical. Since the advent of reproductive rights, there has been acrimonious and even deadly debate on whether a human embryo, resulting from the fertilization of the egg by a sperm, at whatever stage, is considered "alive" and with "rights." Society’s fear of human clones is also fed by stem cell research since "reproductive cloning" is the other path that the cloning of human embryos could lead to, although scientists will tell you that human clones are much more difficult to "make" as most imagine and only a handful of scientists admit to be willing to clone for that purpose. These fears are what halted federal funding of stem cell research in the US.

So scientists looked to Nature again to find if there is a way we could heal ourselves from therapeutic cloning without being so divided as to the morality and ethics we are now in using fertilized human embryos. Scientists started from the very beginning and took a better look at the egg again and saw if the egg was capable of going at it alone – i.e., "virgin birth" or "parthenogenesis" from the Greek word for virgin, "parthenos." They looked "inside" and "outside." "Inside," they looked at certain quirks growing inside women like dermoid cysts of the ovary and teratomas. According to Harvard Institute of Medicine’s Ann Kiesling, in her article "Eggs Alone" in March 2005 in the journal Nature, dermoid cysts arise if the "ovarian sack fails to rupture; the retained egg activates cell division on its own and gives rise to a small cluster of cells that undergo limited differentiation"; and teratomas are "benign growths that are not restricted to the ovary and exhibit a variety of cell types, including skin, muscle, bone and occasionally hair and rudimentary teeth." This meant that the egg probably already has it in its powers to form an embryo without being fertilized. "Outside," scientists knew and observed plants and animals. It is not at all a well-guarded secret in biology that many species in the animal kingdom and almost routine in many plants, to, without sweat, reproduce without being fertilized by sperm. Honey bees (male honeybees are results of unfertilized bee eggs, while female queen bees/workers are from fertilized eggs), wasps, aphids, certain reptiles, dandelions, many species of ants are only some examples of the ones more familiar to us. What is really intriguing is that parthenogenesis for most species is not the sole way of giving birth but an option. The eggs of these species sort of gain the power to go at it themselves under "stress" or when the population is in serious decline. It is the egg’s way of saying "not now honey, just take a cold shower" to a sperm, without having to lose the power to give birth.

So then, geneticists worked out procedures by which they can make these sperm-less conceptions possible and experimented with mice and rabbits which were met with limited success. In 2001, Advanced Cell Technology had much better success with monkeys (monkeys are primates so they are genetically closer to humans) when they were able to grow some stem cells that turned into cells for skeletal muscle, intestine, retina, hair follicles, cartilage, bone, heart, and some even into nerve cells that produced the brain chemical that patients with Parkinson’s disease are known to lose: dopamine.

The time seemed ripe to try growing human parthenotes. Scientists began to "sweet-talk" human eggs in the lab to develop without having to wait for sperm. They have been trying since 2001 with disappointing results until recently, when the Roslin Institute (same one that gave us the cloned sheep, "Dolly") announced early this month that it has successfully coaxed a donor egg to undergo "parthenogenesis." These parthenotes are embryos that resulted from unfertilized eggs that came from a group of donated eggs that were due to undergo sterilization anyway. They have not yet been able to extract the stem cells from these "virgin births" but that is the next stage in their work.

As soon as this news was released, newspaper and magazine titles were awash with "immaculate conception" all over. As a writer, I am a bit drawn to the invitation of the metaphor but thinking again, I stopped myself from entitling this column as such since I wanted to disrobe this scientific development of any religious swaddling. The issue is already fraught with enough controversy without trying to fit cutting-edge science in ancient religious clothing, because as soon as this successful parthenogenesis was announced, moralists began insisting that "embryos" are all alike, regardless of whether they resulted from fertilization by sperm or not. To this, scientists scratched their heads and say that if that were so, then we have a larger philosophical problem since we can now get DNA from any part of the body to insert into an egg and jumpstart itself to form an embryo. This makes any cell in the body, potential embryo material. If so, then we might as well give rights to each and every cell in our body, give them their own social security numbers, represent them in parliament and make them start saving for their pensions with a head start. If this happens, some cells may end up having better rights than actual living children. To use the scientific method to scrutinize religious concepts like "Immaculate Conception" or conversely, forcing science to admit into its body of work such an untestable religious concept such as the "Immaculate Conception," is like using a power drill to embroider on to a piece of silk. You end up with a powerful but utterly useless tool for that purpose and with the fine intimate work for your own soul in tatters.

I find it more useful to point out that "heal thyself" or "believe and be healed" are ancient words of wisdom found in the text of most major religions, implying the source of strength and healing to be within us since it implies an action like believing that you have to do yourself. No one can do it in your behalf. Now, science finds that, indeed, for our physical selves, it is literally inside our nature where we can probably find the healing we need from some insidious diseases like Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, spinal chord diseases or even something closer to my heart, a congenital liver disease called Biliary atresia, because a friend of mine, Rainier Carlos, 5, struggles with it with a love and courage so deep that it would shame the noisiest, banner having zealot.

Sperm may have been dethroned in its role with this first success in human virgin conception but if this procedure could save lives, especially of those who have barely started like that of Rainier, sperm pride should be the least of our concerns. I am sure biology will find some other source of pride for the sperm. And I have a feeling that my stout-hearted male readers, as always when the topic is somewhat related to sex, will waste no time and will start sending me e-mails reminding me of their worth. After science news like this that sperm can save lives by being "absent," those e-mails better be good.

For comments, e-mail [email protected]