Final Report (all chapters)

the institution of the family, as increased individual autonomy may make it more difficult for
prospective parents to reach a consensus on when to have a baby. 28
That egg cryopreservation is rapidly becoming a matter of public concern is demonstrated
by the interest that the American Society for Reproductive Medicine has taken in this issue. In a
recently published report titled “Ovarian Tissue and Oocyte Cryopreservation,” the ASRM
discusses whether egg freezing should serve exclusively therapeutic purposes, or whether it
should also be recommended as a means to defer procreation. The report concludes that oocyte
cryopreservation should be offered exclusively for therapeutic reasons, 29 based exclusively on
health and safety considerations. The ASRM does not explore the potential broader societal
implications of widespread adoption of this technology – in our view, one more reason to
broaden the debate on new reproductive technologies.
4.3.3 Co-Culture
The FDA considers co-culture an instance of xenotransplantation. 30 In co-culture, human
embryos come into contact with animal cells outside the human body. In FDA terminology, the
recipient of an embryo cultivated on non-human tissues is therefore the recipient of a
xenotransplantation “product.” As a laboratory technique, co-culture is not new. According to
news reports, fertility clinics started offering co-culture to select patients as early as 1989. The
technique is actually older than that. It was developed in the 1960s and tested on mice and rats,
but never on humans before it was offered as a reproductive service.
Co-culture meets all the requirements of an innovative reproductive procedure. It only came
to regulators’ attention in 2002, although it has been around for much longer. 31
It is not
commonly used and it is certainly not considered a standard reproductive procedure by the CDC
or by ART professionals. To our knowledge, the long-term health and safety impact of this
technology on children has never been studied. Clearly, co-culture is likely to meet with
considerable resistance both on safety and ethical grounds.
28
29
30
31
Some may argue that this argument is discriminatory, as men, for all intents and purposes, already have the
ability to delay reproductive choices. However, this argument is not entirely convincing, as men’s ability to
procreate well into old age is not the result of any medical progress.
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, "Ovarian Tissue and Oocyte
Cryopreservation," Fertility and Sterility 82, no. 4 (2004).
See http://www.fda.gov/cber/infosheets/humembclin.htm.
Medical researchers have been experimenting with co-culture as a means to improve ART success rates for quite
some time, but it appears that they have done so mostly on animal models. See H.L Feng et al., "Fertilization and
Early Embryology: Effect of Different Co-Culture Systems in Early Human Embryo Development," Human
Reproduction 11 (1996); F.S. Nietro et al., "The Effects of Cocolture with Autologous Cryopreserved
Endometrial Cells on Human in Vitro Fertilization and Early Embryo Morphology: A Randomized Study,"
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 13 (1996); J. Thibodeaux and R. Godke, "In Vitro Enhancement
of Early Stage Embryos with Coculture," Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine 116 (1992); K.E.
Wiemer et al., "Embryonic Morphology and Rate of Implantation of Human Embryos Following Coculture on
Bovine Oviductal Epethelial Cells," Human Reproduction 8 (1993).
85