Author: Alanna Kells, PhD Candidate, Department of Law and Criminology, Maynooth University
In August of this year, headlines sprung up from news sources around the world such as Vice, the Economic Times, the Daily Mail and the New York Post, that Kaiwa Technology, a Chinese tech company, planned to unveil a robot fitted with an artificial womb capable of gestating a fetus. Inflammatorily deemed ‘pregnancy robots’, ‘pregnancy humanoids’, and ‘robot surrogates’, by news outlets, at a cost of approximately 100,000 yuan (approximately 12,000 euro), these devices were reported as a cheap alternative to commercial surrogacy agreements, which in the United States can range from 100,000 – 200,000 USD (approximately 85,000 – 172,000 euro). The claims of an imminently possible artificial womb technology (AWT) from Kaiwa Technology spurred numerous sensationalist headlines and sparked public discourse about the prospect of ectogenesis (the gestation of a fetus outside of the human body in an AWT) and the array of legal, ethical and scientific questions that these technologies may raise.
This is not the first time that ectogenesis has notoriously made headlines. As I wrote about previously, Ectolife, a concept video which imagined a facility where up to 30,000 human babies could be grown in pods, caused controversy due, in part, to its dystopian imagery of a baby farm. In contrast to Ectolife which appeared to be a speculative thought-experiment showing a hypothetical use of artificial wombs, Kaiwa Technology made the bold claim that its technology would be ‘available within a year.’ However, soon after this claim was reported in the media, reports from sources such as Snopes, Futurism and Sify.com claimed that a lack of fact-checking had allowed these claims to spread, and that no such technology was possible. At worst a hoax, or at best an exaggerated claim of current technological capabilities, the notion of ‘pregnancy robots’ which would facilitate the entirety of the gestation process without the need for human pregnancy remains far from current scientific reality.
Although ‘pregnancy robots’ as reported in the media are not currently scientifically possible, there have been advancements in ectogenesis in animal contexts in recent years. Trials of partial ectogenesis (the transfer of the fetus to an AWT during pregnancy) in animals such as the EVE project and the Extend Biobag have shown promising results, with the goal of eventually translating this technology for use in Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICUs) to support the development of premature human infants. As such, even if this technology is translated from animal to human use, there remains a significant scientific gap between partial ectogenesis to support premature infants, and complete ectogenesis which seeks to facilitate gestation from conception, entirely outside of the human body.
While developments in partial ectogenesis may gradually edge complete ectogenesis closer to reality, the possible actual use of complete ectogenesis for human reproduction is limited both by scientific and legal factors. Currently, the scientific challenges to complete ectogenesis include the complexities of understanding how to gestate a fetus entirely outside the body in the absence of the human placenta and womb.
Further to this scientific limitation, legally, complete ectogenesis is constrained by the internationally recognised “14-day rule” in embryo research, which prohibits human embryos from being cultured outside of the body for longer than 14 days. For complete gestation to occur in an artificial womb, embryos would need to be maintained externally from conception to the completion of gestation, which current legal and ethical frameworks do not allow. Although the 2021 ISSCR guidelines relaxed the international stance on this limit, opening the door for discussion about its extension, the limit remains applicable under most national rules. The 14-day rule is currently being reviewed in the United Kingdom, but even if the rule were extended, it seems unlikely this would go so far as to permit complete ectogenesis. Even if the 14-day rule no longer applied, such embryos cannot be implanted into the human body, raising the question of whether it would be legally permissible to transfer them into an artificial womb instead. This, in turn, highlights a broader issue: if complete ectogenesis became possible, would it be considered embryo research or a form of reproduction, and how would current laws adapt to such a development to ensure its appropriate regulation? These questions highlight the possible gaps in current legal and ethical frameworks in respect of ectogenesis..
Despite these (and other) scientific and legal gaps, provocative headlines and stories such as those created in Ectolife and the Kaiwa ‘pregnancy robot’ context, frequently cause outcry and sensationalism in the media. These claims and media reporting arguably undermine the possible scientific, ethical, and social value of ectogenesis, particularly as recent animal studies have focused on improvement of neonatal intensive care, rather than the replacement of human reproduction.
Although the claims of a ‘pregnancy robot’ were untrue, the extensive reporting and widespread public interest shows simultaneous excitement and unease regarding the future of ectogenesis. The revelation that the technologies touted by Kaiwa technology and reported by the media are not currently possible may cause a range of reactions, including disappointment for those who may have seen this as an avenue to have children, such as those in same-sex relationships, those experiencing infertility, or those who may be unable to carry a pregnancy due to medical reasons. Beyond the ‘click-bait’ headlines, it is important to consider the ethical implications for those who may benefit from ectogenesis and why such technologies may be desired. Focusing solely on the scientific feasibility of these technologies, risks overlooking the human element of why there may be demand for these technologies, and broader questions surrounding their transformative potential for reproduction and non-traditional family formation.
However, despite this liberating potential of AWT, both partial and complete ectogenesis have the potential to raise other complex legal and ethical concerns, including questions around the legal assignment of parentage, the source of gametes, and the rights and interests of any child born via this technology. As such, careful consideration and balancing of potential risks and benefits of artificial womb technologies is necessary prior to the advent and use of this technology in humans.
While complete ectogenesis and the notion of ‘pregnancy robots’ remain both scientifically and legally distant, animal trials bring partial ectogenesis closer to being possible in humans. It is therefore crucial to anticipate and critically consider what legal and ethical issues may arise in this context. The advent of ectogenesis in humans, (if, or when, possible in future) will inevitably upheave current understandings of reproduction and parenthood, and as such, its potential application must be considered in detail so that legal and policy frameworks may address the legal, ethical and societal issues arising.
The research conducted in this publication was funded by the Irish Research Council under award number GOIPG/2022/620.
All views and opinions expressed are the author’s own.
