In today’s fast-paced world, we often rely on ready-made products for convenience. However, the concept of customizing human life, specifically through the creation of a human baby, is increasingly becoming a reality. Historically, the purchasing of human beings has been condemned and continues to manifest in modern human trafficking. But imagine a future where purchasing a customized human baby becomes as straightforward as buying any other product. This futuristic scenario is being approached with the advent of EctoLife, the world’s first artificial womb facility. This idea is floated by Hashem Al-Ghaili, a science communicator and biotechnologist from Berlin, EctoLife aims to allow couples, especially those who are infertile, to conceive babies and become true biological parents. This facility is poised to offer parents the ability to customize their babies, selecting specific traits and qualities.
Since the early 1980s, in vitro fertilization and “test tube babies” have sparked ethical debates about artificial womb technology (AWT). Recent advancements in AWT for neonatal life support have intensified these discussions, especially concerning the potential for “complete ectogenesis”, where gestation occurs entirely outside the womb. Two research teams, one in the U.S. and one in Australia, have developed artificial womb devices, the EVE2 platform and the biobag, to improve preterm infant care. These devices, demonstrating proof of concept, could significantly reduce mortality and morbidity among preterm infants. However, the ethical considerations for adopting these experimental technologies as alternatives to conventional treatments have proven insufficient.
Animal research using the biobag and the EVE platform have rekindled interest in the socio-ethical aspects of AWT. The argument frequently assumes the inevitability of AWT in humans, focusing on future ethical difficulties while ignoring urgent concerns about moving AWT from concept to clinical practice. Arguments for ectogenesis as a moral imperative justify research risks but frequently overlook the significant risks to pregnant individuals and preterm infants.
Traditionally, motherhood has been revered, with the mother’s role seen as sacred, especially during childbirth, which strengthens the bond between mother and child. The saying “a mother’s position can’t be replaced” underscores this belief. However, with the emergence of EctoLife, technology has challenged this assumption. Ectolife is supposed to produce up to 30,000 infants each year in transparent pods that resemble a mother’s womb. While surrogacy has long been debated for its legal, moral, and ethical implications, similar concerns arise with EctoLife. Questions linger about whether these artificial wombs can foster the same strong bond between mother and child as natural pregnancy.
On one hand, EctoLife presents potential benefits, such as reducing maternal mortality rates, preventing premature births, lowering infant mortality, and eliminating genetic diseases through its customizable features. It aims to alleviate human suffering and significantly reduce the need for C-sections and premature births. EctoLife could be an ideal solution for women who have surgically removed their uterus due to cancer or other any other complications. AI systems will monitor child growth, allowing parents to track their child’s development via a phone app. However, the experience of feeling a baby’s first kick, a cherished moment for mothers, may become a mere story, as it is not possible with pods.
Furthermore, this technology could reduce natural childbirth in some societal sectors, raising the question of whether the bond between mother and child can be replicated in the same way. While some mothers might appreciate avoiding the pain associated with labor, the reduction in physical experiences might lessen the emotional connection. Could this lead to a generation with diminished maternal bonds and altered human relationships?
This raises the critical question: is it morally and ethically right to allow such technology, which contradicts natural laws? Technology has gradually made us more dependent on machines, and we must consider the implications of this dependency. We are all aware of the issues surrounding human cloning, which is universally condemned by all nations. Similar concerns apply to EctoLife. This technology could exacerbate social inequalities, where the rich may benefit disproportionately, creating smarter offspring while the poor remain disadvantaged. It has the potential to impact healthy competition among children and shows that slowly everything will be grown in the lab. Two years ago, Ohio State University successfully grew a brain that had structural and genetic similarities to a five-week-old fetus, a breakthrough considered a “game changer” that also contained functioning neurons. There are many such examples where human body parts have been developed in the lab. Farmers used to cultivate food on agricultural land, and now machines in labs will rear and give birth to customized children. Through EctoLife, one can have a genetically engineered baby, choosing “intelligence, height, strength, hair, eye color, etc., and avoiding genetic diseases”.
Is there actually a need for such technology? Even though EctoLife is a concept, no one knows when it will become a reality. But before it does, we need to ask ourselves what we want. However, the current state of science is no longer a significant barrier. Technologically, the optimal conditions for a baby can be replicated in a transparent artificial womb, such as EctoLife’s EZ Womb. As we move forward with technological advancements like EctoLife, we must carefully weigh the ethical and moral implications. The potential benefits must be balanced against the profound changes such technologies could bring to our understanding of life, parenthood, and human connection. The question remains: are we ready for a future where the natural process of childbirth is replaced by artificial means, and if so, at what cost?
Dr. Pyali Chatterjee, HOD, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, ICFAI University, Raipur, Chhattisgarh and Dr. Ammar Younas, PhD (ANSO Scholar), Institute of Philosophy, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Beijing, China, School of Humanities, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.
