Book contents
- Presenting the First Test-Tube Baby
- Presenting the First Test-Tube Baby
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Illustrations
- Tables
- Acknowledgements
- Foreword
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 From Oldham and Cambridge to the Rest of the World
- 3 The Lecture, 1979
- 4 The Professional Reminiscence, 2019
- 5 The Local Reminiscence
- 6 The Legacy
- Index
- References
6 - The Legacy
2019 and Beyond
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 February 2023
Book contents
- Presenting the First Test-Tube Baby
- Presenting the First Test-Tube Baby
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Illustrations
- Tables
- Acknowledgements
- Foreword
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 From Oldham and Cambridge to the Rest of the World
- 3 The Lecture, 1979
- 4 The Professional Reminiscence, 2019
- 5 The Local Reminiscence
- 6 The Legacy
- Index
- References
Summary
Peter Braude and Martin Johnson were young researchers, a doctor and a scientist, working with Robert Edwards at Cambridge. They both witnessed (from the inside) how the IVF programme and first birth changed the worlds of science and O&G over the next forty years. Johnson wrote Edward’s citation for the Nobel Prize. They are uniquely placed to act as a bridge from 1979 into speculating about the future and whether the course of science can even be predicted.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Presenting the First Test-Tube BabyThe Edwards and Steptoe Lecture of 1979, pp. 201 - 215Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Johnson, MH. A short history of in vitro fertilization (IVF). International Journal of Developmental Biology 2019;63(3-4-5):83–92.Google Scholar
Leeton, J. The early history of IVF in Australia and its contribution to the world (1970–1990). Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2004;44(6):495–501.Google Scholar
Ethics Advisory Board. HEW Support of Research Involving Human In Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer. Washington, DC: Department of Health Education and Welfare, 1979.Google Scholar
Niederberger, C, Pellicer, A, Cohen, J, Gardner, DK, Palermo, GD, O’Neill, CL, et al. Forty years of IVF. Fertility and Sterility 2018;110(2):185–324.e5.Google Scholar
Palermo, G, Joris, H, Devroey, P, Van Steirteghem, AC. Pregnancies after intracytoplasmic injection of single spermatozoon into an oocyte. Lancet 1992;340(8810):17–18.Google Scholar
Oud, MS, Volozonoka, L, Smits, RM, Vissers, L, Ramos, L, Veltman, JA. A systematic review and standardized clinical validity assessment of male infertility genes. Human Reproduction 2019;34(5):932–41.Google Scholar
Polge, C. Low-temperature storage of mammalian spermatozoa. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 1957;147(929):498–508.Google ScholarPubMed
Paynter, SJ. Current status of the cryopreservation of human unfertilized oocytes. Human Reproduction Update 2000;6(5):449–56.Google Scholar
Saunders, RM, Ferrier, AJ, Ryan, J. Fertility preservation in female oncology patients. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 1996;6(3);161–67.Google Scholar
Borini, A, Lagalla, C, Bonu, MA, Bianchi, V, Flamigni, C, Coticchio, G. Cumulative pregnancy rates resulting from the use of fresh and frozen oocytes: 7 years’ experience. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 2006;12(4):481–86.Google Scholar
Argyle, CE, Harper, JC, Davies, MC. Oocyte cryopreservation: where are we now? Human Reproduction Update 2016;22(4):440–49.Google Scholar
HFEA. One Child at a Time: Report of the Expert Group on Multiple Births after IVF. London: Human Fertillisation and Embryology Authority, 2006.Google Scholar
Cobo, A, Garcia-Velasco, JA, Remohi, J, Pellicer, A. Oocyte vitrification for fertility preservation for both medical and nonmedical reasons. Fertility and Sterility 2021;115(5):1091–101.Google Scholar
Leonel, ECR, Lucci, CM, Amorim, CA. Cryopreservation of human ovarian tissue: a review. Transfusion Medicine and Hemotherapy 2019;46(3):173–81.Google Scholar
Gauthier‐Fisher, A, Kauffman, A, Librach, C. Potential use of stem cells for fertility preservation. Andrology 2020;8(4):862–78.Google Scholar
Edwards, RG, Gardner, RL. Sexing of live rabbit blastocysts. Nature 1967;214(5088):576–77.Google Scholar
Monk, M, Muggleton-Harris, AL, Rawlings, E, Whittingham, DG. Pre-implantation diagnosis of HPRT-deficient male and carrier female mouse embryos by trophectoderm biopsy. Human Reproduction 1988;3(3):377–81.Google Scholar
Handyside, AH, Kontogianni, EH, Hardy, K, Winston, RM. Pregnancies from biopsied human preimplantation embryos sexed by Y-specific DNA amplification. Nature 1990;344(6268):768–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Wert, G, Dondorp, W. Preconception sex selection for non-medical and intermediate reasons: ethical reflections. Facts, Views and Visions in Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2010;2(4):267–77.Google Scholar
Verlinsky, Y, Cohen, J, Munne, S, Gianaroli, L, Simpson, JL, Ferraretti, AP, et al. Over a decade of experience with preimplantation genetic diagnosis: a multicenter report. Fertility and Sterility 2004;82(2):292–94.Google Scholar
Cornelisse, S, Zagers, M, Kostova, E, Fleischer, K, van Wely, M, Mastenbroek, S. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (abnormal number of chromosomes) in in vitro fertilisation. Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews 2020;9:CD005291.Google Scholar
Mortimer, R, Ginsburg, E. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: has the controversy settled? A review. Current Obstetrics and Gynecology Reports 2022;11(9):1–7.Google Scholar
Braude, P. The emperor still looks naked. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 2018;37(2):133–35.Google Scholar
Bolton, H, Graham, SJL, Van der Aa, N, Kumar, P, Theunis, K, Fernandez Gallardo, E, et al. Mouse model of chromosome mosaicism reveals lineage-specific depletion of aneuploid cells and normal developmental potential. Nature Communications 2016;7:11165.Google Scholar
Grati, FR, Ferreira, J, Benn, P, Izzi, C, Verdi, F, Vercellotti, E, et al. Outcomes in pregnancies with a confined placental mosaicism and implications for prenatal screening using cell-free DNA. Genetics in Medicine 2020;22(2):309–16.Google Scholar
Yan, J, Qin, Y, Zhao, H, Sun, Y, Gong, F, Li, R, et al. Live birth with or without preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy. New England Journal of Medicine 2021;385(22):2047–58.Google Scholar
Sciorio, R, Dattilo, M. PGT – a preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies and embryo selection in routine ART cycles: time to step back? Clinical Genetics 2020;98(2):107–15.Google Scholar
Besser, AG, McCulloh, DH, Grifo, JA. What are patients doing with their mosaic embryos? Decision making after genetic counseling. Fertility and Sterility 2019;111(1):132-37. e1.Google Scholar
Gleicher, N, Patrizio, P, Brivanlou, A. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy – a castle built on sand. Trends in Molecular Medicine 2021;27(8):731–42.Google Scholar
Mastenbroek, S, de Wert, G, Adashi, EY. The imperative of responsible innovation in reproductive medicine. New England Journal of Medicine 2021;385(22):2096–100.Google Scholar
Edwards, RG. IVF and the history of stem cells. Nature 2001;413(6854):349–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hollands, P. Transplantation of embryonic haemopoietic stem cells without prior recipient X-irradiation. British Journal of Haematology 1988;69(4):437–40.Google Scholar
Morange, M. What history tells us. VII. Twenty-five years ago: the production of mouse embryonic stem cells. Journal of Bioscience 2006;31(5):537–41.Google Scholar
Thomson, JA, Itskovitz-Eldor, J, Shapiro, SS, Waknitz, MA, Swiergiel, JJ, Marshall, VS, et al. Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts. Science 1998;282(5391):1145–47.Google Scholar
Franklin, SB, Hunt, C, Cornwell, G, Peddie, V, Desousa, P, Livie, M, et al. hESCCO: development of good practice models for hES cell derivation. Regenerative Medicine 2008;3(1):105–16.Google Scholar
Pickering, SJ, Braude, PR, Patel, M, Burns, CJ, Trussler, J, Bolton, V, et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis as a novel source of embryos for stem cell research. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 2003;7(3):353–64.Google Scholar
Takahashi, K, Yamanaka, S. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell 2006;126(4):663–76.Google Scholar
Yamanaka, S. Strategies and new developments in the generation of patient-specific pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 2007;1(1):39–49.Google Scholar
Park, IH, Arora, N, Huo, H, Maherali, N, Ahfeldt, T, Shimamura, A, et al. Disease-specific induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell 2008;134(5):877–86.Google Scholar
de Wert, G, van der Hout, S, Goddijn, M, Vassena, R, Frith, L, Vermeulen, N, et al. The ethics of preconception expanded carrier screening in patients seeking assisted reproduction. Human Reproduction Open 2021(1):hoaa063.Google Scholar
Downie, L, Halliday, J, Lewis, S, Amor, DJ. Principles of genomic newborn screening programs: a systematic review. JAMA Network Open 2021;4(7):e2114336.Google Scholar
Malech, HL. Treatment by CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing – a proof of principle. New England Journal of Medicine 2021;384(3):286–87.Google Scholar
National Academy of Medicine (US) et al. Heritable Human Genome Editing. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2020.Google Scholar
Li, JR, Walker, S, Nie, JB, Zhang, XQ. Experiments that led to the first gene-edited babies: the ethical failings and the urgent need for better governance. Journal of Zhejiang University – Science B 2019;20(1):32–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, Q, Wang, M, Yuan, Y, Wang, X, Fu, R, Wan, H, et al. Complete meiosis from embryonic stem cell-derived germ cells in vitro. Cell Stem Cell 2016;18(3):330–40.Google Scholar
Hikabe, O, Hamazaki, N, Nagamatsu, G, Obata, Y, Hirao, Y, Hamada, N, et al. Reconstitution in vitro of the entire cycle of the mouse female germ line. Nature 2016;539(7628):299–303.Google Scholar
Adashi, EY, Cohen, IG. Assisted same-sex reproduction: the promise of haploid stem cells? Stem Cells Development 2020;29(22):1417–19.Google Scholar
Williams, K, Johnson, MH. Adapting the 14-day rule for embryo research to encompass evolving technologies. Reproductive Biomedicine and Society Online 2020;10:1–9.Google Scholar
Deglincerti, A, Croft, GF, Pietila, LN, Zernicka-Goetz, M, Siggia, ED, Brivanlou, AH. Self-organization of the in vitro attached human embryo. Nature 2016;533(7602):251–54.Google Scholar
Shahbazi, MN, Jedrusik, A, Vuoristo, S, Recher, G, Hupalowska, A, Bolton, V, et al. Self-organization of the human embryo in the absence of maternal tissues. Nature Cell Biology 2016;18(6):700–708.Google Scholar
Popovic, M, Dhaenens, L, Taelman, J, Dheedene, A, Bialecka, M, De Sutter, P, et al. Extended in vitro culture of human embryos demonstrates the complex nature of diagnosing chromosomal mosaicism from a single trophectoderm biopsy. Human Reproduction 2019;34(4):758–69.Google Scholar
Niu, Y, Sun, N, Li, C, Lei, Y, Huang, Z, Wu, J, et al. Dissecting primate early post-implantation development using long-term in vitro embryo culture. Science 2019;366(6467): eaaw5754.Google Scholar
Warnock, M. Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology. London: HM Stationery Office, 1984.Google Scholar
Hyun, I, Wilkerson, A, Johnston, J. Embryology policy: revisit the 14-day rule. Nature 2016;533(7602):169–71.Google Scholar
Franklin, S. How the conversation around IVF has changed over 50 years. 13 February 2020. www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/blog/how-conversation-around-ivf-has-changed-over-50-years/, accessed 23 July 2022.Google Scholar
Franklin, S. Developmental landmarks and the Warnock Report: a sociological account 2019;61(4):743–773.Google Scholar
Appleby, JB, Bredenoord, AL. Should the 14-day rule for embryo research become the 28-day rule? EMBO Molecular Medicine 2018;10(9): e9437.Google Scholar
Lovell-Badge, R. Stem-cell guidelines: why it was time for an update. Nature 2021;593(7860):479.Google Scholar
Ravindran, S. Embryo-like models shed fresh light on early human development. Nature 2021;600(7890):767–69.Google Scholar
Topol, EJ. High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nature Medicine 2019;25(1):44–56.Google Scholar
Zaninovic, N, Rosenwaks, Z. Artificial intelligence in human in vitro fertilization and embryology. Fertility and Sterility 2020;114(5):914–20.Google Scholar
Lundin, K, Park, H. Time-lapse technology for embryo culture and selection. Upsala Journal of Medical Science 2020;125(2):77–84.Google Scholar
Kalleas, D, McEvoy, K, Horne, G, Roberts, SA, Brison, DR. Live birth rate following undisturbed embryo culture at low oxygen in a time-lapse incubator compared to a high-quality benchtop incubator. Human Fertility (Cambridge) 2020;26:1–7.Google Scholar
NICE. Fertility Problems: Assessment and Treatment. Guideline CG156. Update 2017. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2017.Google Scholar
Fauser, BC. Towards the global coverage of a unified registry of IVF outcomes. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 2019;38(2):133–37.Google Scholar
Eccles, L. How City fat cats have turned your local vet into a ‘cash-generating unit’. The Times, 9 May 2021.Google Scholar
Virtus Health. We help more than 5000 people become parents every year. 2022. www.virtushealth.com.au/who-we-are, accessed 22 July 2022.Google Scholar
IVI-RMA. Global around the world – 75 clinics in 5 countries. 2022. https://ivi-fertility.com/faqs/ivi-around-the-world/, accessed 22 July 2022.Google Scholar
HFEA. Treatment add-ons with limited evidence. 2022. www.hfea.gov.uk/treatments/treatment-add-ons/, accessed 22 July 2022.Google Scholar
Cooper-Surgical. Fertility solutions. 2022. https://fertility.coopersurgical.com, accessed 22 July 2022.Google Scholar
Begley, S. From assisted hatching to embryo glue, most IVF ‘add-ons’ rest on shaky science, studies find. STAT, 5 November 2019.Google Scholar