What if gestation, or at least part of the process, could be externalized using extrauterine devices, whether to continue the development of premature newborns or for more political purposes, such as combating declining birth rates? Such technology is still a long way from being feasible, but research is indeed being conducted in this area.

Last August, rumors circulated that a Chinese researcher, Zhang Qifeng, founder of Kaiwa Technology, was working on developing humanoid robots with artificial wombs, capable of carrying a fetus for up to ten months. The prototype is said to be nearly finalized and should be ready by 2026. Price of the “pregnancy robot”: 100,000 yuan (approximately 12,000 euros).

Upon verification, it appears that this reproductive technique, called “ectogenesis,” will not be implemented in China and that the information circulating is false . The same applies to the existence of Zhang Qifeng.

However, even though for the moment the artificial womb (AW) is science fiction, the creation of such a technical device – seen as an extension of neonatal incubators and medically assisted reproduction techniques – is the subject of research in several countries.

Animal research on extrauterine devices

The idea of ​​conceiving and giving birth to a child completely outside the woman’s body, from conception to birth, is not new. The geneticist John Burdon Sanderson Haldane (1892-1964), who coined the term “ectogenesis,” conceived of it in 1923.

According to the predictions of this eugenics advocate , the first baby conceived through artificial insemination was expected to be born in 1951.

Henri Atlan, a specialist in bioethics and author of The Artificial Womb (2005), believed that the realization of the AU could take place by the middle or end of the 21st century .

Even though AU does not yet exist, researchers have already begun to conduct trials on animals, hoping to subsequently develop AU prototypes applicable to humans.

In 1993, for example, in Japan, Professor Yoshinori Kuwabara designed an incubator containing artificial amniotic fluid that allowed two goat fetuses (120 days and 128 days old, with gestation being five months in goats, or around 150 days) to develop outside the uterus for three weeks. At birth, they survived for more than a week.

In 2017, an article published in Nature Communications revealed the work of Alan Flake’s team , a fetal surgeon at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (USA), which enabled lamb fetuses to partially develop, again in an extrauterine device filled with artificial amniotic fluid, for four weeks. With appropriate nutrition, the lambs experienced apparently normal growth, particularly in lung and brain development.

The use of animals for research purposes, although regulated in many countries, including European Union countries ( European Directive 2010/63 EU ) and the United States ( Animal Welfare Act ), nevertheless raises ethical questions.

Research and advances also concerning humans

In the field of human reproduction, progress has also been considerable. Since 1978 – the year of the birth of Louise Brown , the world’s first “test-tube baby” – it has been possible to conceive an embryo through in vitro fertilization (IVF), and then successfully implant it in the mother’s uterus.

In 2003, the work of American researcher Helen Hung Ching Liu demonstrated the possibility of implanting embryos in a biodegradable cavity shaped like a human uterus and lined with endometrial cells . Lacking legal authorization, the embryos, which were developing normally, were destroyed after six days.

In 2016, an article published in Nature Cell Biology also revealed that embryonic development could continue in the laboratory, thanks to an in vitro system .

The challenge for researchers is to fill the period following the first 14 days of the embryo conceived by IVF – a period which corresponds to a critical threshold as it includes key stages of embryo development .

To date, many countries have defined a limit of fourteen days not to be exceeded for in vitro embryonic development for research purposes or for fertilization, either in the form of recommendations or through legislation, as is the case in France .

In the future, is there a risk of the original objectives being diverted?

Current research into the development of “partial” AU , in which the child would be placed in an extrauterine device filled with synthetic fluid, is motivated by therapeutic reasons, including reducing mortality in premature newborns.

However, “total” AU, which would allow for extracorporeal gestation from fertilization to birth, could be deployed to meet other objectives. This is naturally a forward-looking exercise, but here are some developments that seem conceivable if “total” AU were to be developed and become widely available.

Some women might resort to it for personal reasons. Henri Atlan had already predicted its normalization  :

“Very quickly, a demand will develop from women wishing to procreate while avoiding the constraints of pregnancy […] As soon as it is possible to procreate without getting pregnant, on what grounds will we oppose the demand of women who can choose this method of gestation?”

In a capitalist society, some companies might encourage a culture of extracorporeal births to avoid absences related to human pregnancy . This could lead to discrimination between employees who prefer a natural pregnancy and those who choose assisted reproductive technology (ART) as part of their maternity plans. In a competitive environment, other companies might finance ART. It’s worth noting that in the United States, several large companies (Google, Apple, Facebook, etc.) already cover the cost of IVF and/or egg freezing to attract top talent, although neither of these practices constitutes “baby insurance.” Several IVF cycles may be necessary before pregnancy can occur.

AU could be used to circumvent the ban on surrogacy in force in many states, or be preferred to surrogacy to avoid situations where the surrogate mother, after becoming attached to the child she was carrying, refuses to hand it over to the intended parents, or for reasons of cost.

The fertility industry could develop what would be a new market
– that of assisted reproductive technology (ART) – alongside the existing markets for IVF, sperm, eggs, and surrogacy. This would lead to the industrial production of human beings, profoundly altering humanity.

Undeniably, assisted reproductive technology (ART) could lead to demands for a right to a designer baby (a baby made to order or a bespoke baby) through the lens of private eugenics. With a fully visible and controllable body in ART, parents could demand “quality control” over the child throughout the entire artificial gestation period.

In the United States, several fertility clinics already offer prospective parents the option of choosing the sex and eye color of their child conceived through IVF, combined with preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). Others, such as Genomic Prediction , offer the possibility of selecting the “best embryo” after a polygenic test , before its implantation in the mother’s uterus. The birth of genetically modified babies has also been possible since the births of Lulu and Nana in China in 2018, despite the ban on this practice.

The final element of this prospective exercise is that the AU could be used for political purposes. Some countries could conduct biomedical birth control, leading to state-sponsored eugenics. Other states could leverage the AU to address declining birth rates.

What do feminists think?

By considering the separation of the entire process of procreation – from conception to birth – from the human body, the AU sparks debate within the feminist movement.

Among the feminists who supported assisted reproductive technology (ART), Shulamith Firestone (1945-2012), in her book *The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution * (1970), argued that ART would liberate women from the constraints of pregnancy and childbirth. Arguing against the sacralization of motherhood and childbirth, she believed that ART would also allow women to transcend their biological function and fully experience their individuality. This view is shared by Anna Smajdor and Kathryn Mackay .

Evie Kendel , for her part, believes that if the AU were to become a reality, the State should take charge of it, in the name of equal opportunities for women.

Among feminists opposed to assisted reproductive technology (ART), Rosemarie Tong believes it could lead to “the commodification of the entire pregnancy process” and the “objectification” of the child. Regarding children born through ART , she states:

“They will be mere creatures of the present and projections into the future, without any meaningful connections to the past. This is a fatal and dead-end path. […] The final step towards the creation of posthuman bodies?”

All these debates are theoretical today, but will they remain so for much longer? And even if artificial wombs were to become feasible one day, is everything that is technically possible necessarily desirable? As Sylvie Martin , author of *The De-childing of the World: Artificial Womb and the Erasure of the Maternal Body * (2012), points out, all human beings are born from a female body. Therefore, if artificial wombs were to become a reality, could we still speak of “human beings”?

Author Bio: Allane Madanamoothoo is Associate Professor of Law at EDC Paris Business School