A study, raised alarm a couple of weeks ago finding a drastic reduction in human sperm count. If the decline is not mitigated, its author warns, it could threaten mankind’s survival. The threat is real. But how does it sit with the likelihood that conceiving babies the normal way through sexual reproduction may not even be necessary in the not-too-distant future? Experimenting with mice, scientists have already demonstrated it is theoretically possible to use human skin cells and turn them into healthy eggs or sperm to conceive a baby. In other examples, Japanese and Chinese scientists have in separate experiments shown that stem cells from a female donor can be grown into sperm cells, also showing it is theoretically possible to create a child from two mothers, each of whom would contribute half the genetic material. First, however, let’s get to grips with the findings of sperm study and the threat the decline in male fertility poses. The study finds greatly reduced sperm concentration, in addition to a drastic decline in sperm counts of more than 50 percent over the past 46 years in men around the world, including in Africa. The study was a meta-analysis of previous research in 53 countries, seven of which are from Arica. East Africa is represented, with Tanzania and Kenya also being part of the study. The findings echo previous research on sperm counts in the continent. It notes a swath of decline in what it refers to as Africa’s “infertility belt” stretching from West Africa, through Central to East Africa. However, as to whether the observed decline in sperm counts around the world poses a threat to humanity’s survival, not all scientists agree, looking at precious analyses of the same data. The dissenters point out that while sperm counts may have fallen by as much as 50 per cent, they are still well within a normal range. The average sperm count dropped from 104 million to 49 million per millilitre from 1973 through 2019. Normal sperm counts, according to this month’s study, are considered to be over 40 million per millilitre which is well within range. More worrying is what might be causing the decline, of which there is scientific consensus. Chemicals used in plastics, in addition to pesticides, herbicides, heavy metals, toxic gases, air pollution and poor lifestyle choices such as sedentary behaviour, poor diet and smoking all are tied to abnormal sperm count. The other concerning aspect tied to lifestyle and environmental factors is that sperm count is also an indicator of men’s health, with low levels being associated with increased risk of chronic disease, testicular cancer and a decreased lifespan. This makes it a serious problem calling for urgent action by policymakers and other actors, including raising awareness. It gives credence to the warning that unless mitigated it could lead to continued deterioration of male health and fertility with implications for the survival of the human species. Alarming though it is, however, there are no indications it will reach crisis levels just yet. World population has just hit 8 billion and, as a sign of fertility robustness, is projected to reach 9 billion by 2038 and 11 billion by 2088. Still, this is where scientific advancement and the experiments on asexual reproduction might come into play. There remain many couples today and in the future who will be desirous of children but who are unable to conceive. Such needs drive innovation, whether to address existing human issues or for science for its own sake to push the envelope and, as often happens, discover unexpected solutions. Scientists and optimists such as this writer believe technological advancement is unstoppable. It is inevitable therefore that creating a child from stem cells or skin cells or by other means yet imagined will at some point become reality, just like it did with the first test-tube baby in 1978. The only thing that could stand in the way is the ethics of the scientific enterprise. To quote the experts, “should the procedure eventually become accessible and inexpensive, we could face the possibility of ‘embryo farming,’ which for some, puts a focus on how this method can devalue human life. Perceived advantages, like making it possible for parents to select from a bigger pool of embryos, also have obvious downsides — like high-tech-enabled eugenics. “Combined with advances in gene editing technology, it raises ethical concerns regarding human enhancement and designer babies. And with IVG theoretically making it possible for a baby to have three or more genetic parents, it raises questions regarding the legal rights and responsibilities of each parent.” These are only some of the ethical issues, but they’re anticipated and are already being looked into. The views expressed in this article are of the writer
