Is Sex for Reproduction About to Become Extinct?
A healthy fetus in utero at 22 weeks.
There are lots of great reasons we humans have sex. We mostly do it to pair bond, realize our primal urges, and feel good. Once in a while, we also do it to make babies. As the coming genetic revolution plays out, we'll still have sex for most of the same reasons we do today. But we'll increasingly not do it to procreate.
Protecting children from harm is one of the core responsibilities of parenting.
Most parents go to great lengths to protect their children from real and imagined harms. This begins with taking prenatal vitamins during pregnancy and extends to having children immunized and protected from exposures to various diseases and dangers. Most of us look askance for good reason at mothers who abuse controlled substances during their pregnancies or parents who choose to not immunize their children. Protecting children from harm is one of the core responsibilities of parenting.
In the United States today, up to two percent of babies are estimated to be born with rare genetic diseases caused by single gene mutations. Sickle cell disease, Tay-Sachs, and Huntington's disease are among the more well-known examples of these, but the list runs to the thousands. Many babies born with these disorders suffer terribly, some die young, and nearly all spend big chunks of their lives struggling through the medical system.
Increasingly, however, many of these single-gene mutation diseases and other chromosomal disorders like Down syndrome are being identified in non-invasive prenatal tests performed on expectant mothers at the end of their first trimester of pregnancy. Knowing the hardship that children born with these types of disorders will likely face, majorities of these women in countries around the world are choosing to terminate pregnancies once these diagnoses have been made. Whatever the justification and whatever anyone's views on the morality of abortion, these decisions are inherently excruciating.
A much smaller number of prospective mothers, however, are today getting this same information about their potential future children before their pregnancies even begin. By undergoing both in vitro fertilization (IVF) and preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), these women are able to know which of the eggs that have been surgically extracted from them and fertilized with their partner or donor's sperm will carry the dangerous mutations. The in vitro embryos with these disorders are simply not implanted in the expectant mother's womb.
It would be monstrous to assert that an existing person with a deadly disease has any less right to thrive than anyone else. But it would also be hard to make a case that parents should affirmatively choose to implant embryos carrying such a disease if given the option. If prospective parents are already today choosing not to implant certain embryos based on our preliminary understanding of disease risk, what will happen when this embryo selection is based on far more information than just a few thousand single gene mutation diseases?
Our ability and willingness to make genetic alterations to our future children will grow over time along with our knowledge and technological ability.
When the first human genome was sequenced in 2003, the race to uncover the mysteries of human genetics had only just begun. Although we still know very little about our genetics relative to the complexity of the genome and even less compared to the broader ecosystem of our biology, the progress toward greater understanding is astounding. Today, the number of single gene mutation diseases and relatively simple genetic traits that can be predicted meaningfully from genetic data alone is already significant.
In the not-distant future, this list will grow to include complex diseases and disease propensities, percentage probabilities of living a long and healthy life, and increasingly the genetic component of complex human attributes like height, IQ, and personality style. This predictive power of genetic analysis will funnel straight into our fertility clinics where prospective parents choosing embryos will be making ever more consequential decisions about the genetic components of the future lives, health, and capabilities of their children.
Our understanding of what the genes extracted from early stage pre-implanted embryos are telling us will be only one of the rocket boosters driving assisted reproduction forward. Another will be the ability to induce adult cells like skin and nucleated blood cells into stem cells and then turn those stem cells into egg progenitor cells and then ultimately eggs. This will not only eliminate the need for hormone treatments and surgery to extract human eggs but also make it easy and cheap to generate an unlimited number of eggs from a given woman.
The average woman has around fifteen eggs extracted during IVF but imagine what generating a thousand eggs will do to the range of possibilities that could be realized through pre-implantation embryo selection. Each of these thousand eggs would be the natural offspring of the two parents, but the variation between them would make it possible to choose the ones with the strongest expression of the genetic component of a particular desired trait – like those with the highest possible genetic IQ potential.
Another rocket booster will be the application of gene editing technologies like CRISPR to edit the genomes of pre-implanted embryos or of the sperm and eggs used to create them. Just this week, Chinese researchers announced they had used CRISPR to edit the CCR5 gene in the pre-implanted embryos of a pair of Chinese twins to make them immune to HIV, the first ever case of gene editing humans and a harbinger of our genetically engineered future. The astounding complexity of the human genome will put limits on our ability to safely make too many simultaneous genetic changes to human embryos, but our ability and willingness to make these types of alterations to our future children will grow over time along with our knowledge and technological ability.
With so much at stake, prospective parents will increasingly have a stark choice when determining how to conceive their children. If they go the traditional route of sex, they will experience both the benign wisdom and unfathomable cruelty of nature. If they use IVF and increasingly informed embryo selection, they will eliminate most single gene mutation diseases and likely increase their children's chances of living a longer and healthier life with more opportunity than their unenhanced peers. But the optimizing parents could also set up their children for misery if these children don't particularly enjoy what they have been optimized to become or see themselves as some type of freakish consumer product with emotions.
Conceiving though sex will come to be seen more and more like not immunizing your children is today, a perfectly natural choice that comes with a significant potential risk and expense.
But although there will be pros and cons on each side, the fight between conception through good old-fashioned sex and conception in the lab will ultimately not be fair. Differences and competition within and between societies will pressure parents and societies to adopt ever more aggressive forms of reproductive technology if they believe doing so will open possibilities and create opportunities for the next generations rather than close them.
Conception through sex will remain as useful as it has always been but lab conception will only get more advantageous. Over time, only zealots will choose to roll the dice of their future children's health and well-being rather than invest, like parents always have, in protecting their children from harm and helping optimize their life potential. Conceiving though sex will come to be seen more and more like not immunizing your children is today, a perfectly natural choice that comes with a significant potential risk and expense to yourself, your children, and your community.
As this future plays out, the genetics and assisted reproduction revolutions will raise enormous, thorny, and massively consequential questions about how we value and invest in diversity, equality, and our own essential humanity – questions we aren't remotely prepared to answer. But these revolutions are coming sooner than most of us understand or are prepared for so we had better get ready.
Because where this trail is ultimately heading goes well beyond sex and toward a fundamental transformation of our evolutionary process as a species – and that should be everybody's business.
Catching colds may help protect kids from Covid
A new study shows that the immune system's response to colds can help prepare it to defend against COVID-19 - but only in the very young.
A common cold virus causes the immune system to produce T cells that also provide protection against SARS-CoV-2, according to new research. The study, published last month in PNAS, shows that this effect is most pronounced in young children. The finding may help explain why most young people who have been exposed to the cold-causing coronavirus have not developed serious cases of COVID-19.
One curiosity stood out in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic – why were so few kids getting sick. Generally young children and the elderly are the most vulnerable to disease outbreaks, particularly viral infections, either because their immune systems are not fully developed or they are starting to fail.
But solid information on the new infection was so scarce that many public health officials acted on the precautionary principle, assumed a worst-case scenario, and applied the broadest, most restrictive policies to all people to try to contain the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2.
One early thought was that lockdowns worked and kids (ages 6 months to 17 years) simply were not being exposed to the virus. So it was a shock when data started to come in showing that well over half of them carried antibodies to the virus, indicating exposure without getting sick. That trend grew over time and the latest tracking data from the CDC shows that 96.3 percent of kids in the U.S. now carry those antibodies.
Antibodies are relatively quick and easy to measure, but some scientists are exploring whether the reactions of T cells could serve as a more useful measure of immune protection.
But that couldn't be the whole story because antibody protection fades, sometimes as early as a month after exposure and usually within a year. Additionally, SARS-CoV-2 has been spewing out waves of different variants that were more resistant to antibodies generated by their predecessors. The resistance was so significant that over time the FDA withdrew its emergency use authorization for a handful of monoclonal antibodies with earlier approval to treat the infection because they no longer worked.
Antibodies got most of the attention early on because they are part of the first line response of the immune system. Antibodies can bind to viruses and neutralize them, preventing infection. They are relatively quick and easy to measure and even manufacture, but as SARS-CoV-2 showed us, often viruses can quickly evolve to become more resistant to them. Some scientists are exploring whether the reactions of T cells could serve as a more useful measure of immune protection.
Kids, colds and T cells
T cells are part of the immune system that deals with cells once they have become infected. But working with T cells is much more difficult, takes longer, and is more expensive than working with antibodies. So studies often lags behind on this part of the immune system.
A group of researchers led by Annika Karlsson at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden focuses on T cells targeting virus-infected cells and, unsurprisingly, saw that they can play a role in SARS-CoV-2 infection. Other labs have shown that vaccination and natural exposure to the virus generates different patterns of T cell responses.
The Swedes also looked at another member of the coronavirus family, OC43, which circulates widely and is one of several causes of the common cold. The molecular structure of OC43 is similar to its more deadly cousin SARS-CoV-2. Sometimes a T cell response to one virus can produce a cross-reactive response to a similar protein structure in another virus, meaning that T cells will identify and respond to the two viruses in much the same way. Karlsson looked to see if T cells for OC43 from a wide age range of patients were cross-reactive to SARS-CoV-2.
And that is what they found, as reported in the PNAS study last month; there was cross-reactive activity, but it depended on a person’s age. A subset of a certain type of T cells, called mCD4+,, that recognized various protein parts of the cold-causing virus, OC43, expressed on the surface of an infected cell – also recognized those same protein parts from SARS-CoV-2. The T cell response was lower than that generated by natural exposure to SARS-CoV-2, but it was functional and thus could help limit the severity of COVID-19.
“One of the most politicized aspects of our pandemic response was not accepting that children are so much less at risk for severe disease with COVID-19,” because usually young children are among the most vulnerable to pathogens, says Monica Gandhi, professor of medicine at the University of California San Francisco.
“The cross-reactivity peaked at age six when more than half the people tested have a cross-reactive immune response,” says Karlsson, though their sample is too small to say if this finding applies more broadly across the population. The vast majority of children as young as two years had OC43-specific mCD4+ T cell responses. In adulthood, the functionality of both the OC43-specific and the cross-reactive T cells wane significantly, especially with advanced age.
“Considering that the mortality rate in children is the lowest from ages five to nine, and higher in younger children, our results imply that cross-reactive mCD4+ T cells may have a role in the control of SARS-CoV-2 infection in children,” the authors wrote in their paper.
“One of the most politicized aspects of our pandemic response was not accepting that children are so much less at risk for severe disease with COVID-19,” because usually young children are among the most vulnerable to pathogens, says Monica Gandhi, professor of medicine at the University of California San Francisco and author of the book, Endemic: A Post-Pandemic Playbook, to be released by the Mayo Clinic Press this summer. The immune response of kids to SARS-CoV-2 stood our expectations on their head. “We just haven't seen this before, so knowing the mechanism of protection is really important.”
Why the T cell immune response can fade with age is largely unknown. With some viruses such as measles, a single vaccination or infection generates life-long protection. But respiratory tract infections, like SARS-CoV-2, cause a localized infection - specific to certain organs - and that response tends to be shorter lived than systemic infections that affect the entire body. Karlsson suspects the elderly might be exposed to these localized types of viruses less often. Also, frequent continued exposure to a virus that results in reactivation of the memory T cell pool might eventually result in “a kind of immunosenescence or immune exhaustion that is associated with aging,” Karlsson says. https://leaps.org/scientists-just-started-testing-a-new-class-of-drugs-to-slow-and-even-reverse-aging/particle-3 This fading protection is why older people need to be repeatedly vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2.
Policy implications
Following the numbers on COVID-19 infections and severity over the last three years have shown us that healthy young people without risk factors are not likely to develop serious disease. This latest study points to a mechanism that helps explain why. But the inertia of existing policies remains. How should we adjust policy recommendations based on what we know today?
The World Health Organization (WHO) updated their COVID-19 vaccination guidance on March 28. It calls for a focus on vaccinating and boosting those at risk for developing serious disease. The guidance basically shrugged its shoulders when it came to healthy children and young adults receiving vaccinations and boosters against COVID-19. It said the priority should be to administer the “traditional essential vaccines for children,” such as those that protect against measles, rubella, and mumps.
“As an immunologist and a mother, I think that catching a cold or two when you are a kid and otherwise healthy is not that bad for you. Children have a much lower risk of becoming severely ill with SARS-CoV-2,” says Karlsson. She has followed public health guidance in Sweden, which means that her young children have not been vaccinated, but being older, she has received the vaccine and boosters. Gandhi and her children have been vaccinated, but they do not plan on additional boosters.
The WHO got it right in “concentrating on what matters,” which is getting traditional childhood immunizations back on track after their dramatic decline over the last three years, says Gandhi. Nor is there a need for masking in schools, according to a study from the Catalonia region of Spain. It found “no difference in masking and spread in schools,” particularly since tracking data indicate that nearly all young people have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2.
Both researchers lament that public discussion has overemphasized the quickly fading antibody part of the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 compared with the more durable T cell component. They say developing an efficient measure of T cell response for doctors to use in the clinic would help to monitor immunity in people at risk for severe cases of COVID-19 compared with the current method of toting up potential risk factors.
In this week's Friday Five: The eyes are the windows to the soul - and biological aging?
Plus, what bean genes mean for health and the planet, a breathing practice that could lower levels of tau proteins in the brain, AI beats humans at assessing heart health, and the benefits of "nature prescriptions"
The Friday Five covers five stories in research that you may have missed this week. There are plenty of controversies and troubling ethical issues in science – and we get into many of them in our online magazine – but this news roundup focuses on new scientific theories and progress to give you a therapeutic dose of inspiration headed into the weekend.
Listen on Apple | Listen on Spotify | Listen on Stitcher | Listen on Amazon | Listen on Google
Here are the stories covered this week:
- The eyes are the windows to the soul - and biological aging?
- What bean genes mean for health and the planet
- This breathing practice could lower levels of tau proteins
- AI beats humans at assessing heart health
- Should you get a nature prescription?