For the first time in human history, the idea of a child born without a mother is moving from the realm of science fiction to scientific possibility. On October 1, 2025, both UnHerd and LADbible reported on a groundbreaking advance in reproductive technology that could fundamentally reshape the very nature of parenthood, family, and human identity. American researchers have managed to replace the DNA from a human egg with genetic material from another person’s skin cell, laying the foundation for embryos that carry no genetic material from a biological mother. While the research is still in its infancy, the implications are already causing ripples across scientific, ethical, and cultural landscapes.
This development hinges on a process called in vitro gametogenesis (IVG). As LADbible explains, IVG involves reprogramming ordinary skin cells into stem cells, which can then be coaxed into becoming sex cells—eggs or sperm. The process starts with extracting the nucleus, the cell’s genetic command center, from a donor’s skin cell. This nucleus is then implanted into a donor egg that’s been stripped of its own nucleus, in a technique known as somatic cell nuclear transfer.
But there’s a catch: such cells initially contain two sets of chromosomes, doubling the normal human count. To solve this, researchers have developed a novel method called mitomeiosis, which mimics natural cell division and discards one set of chromosomes. The result? A reproductive cell with the correct number of chromosomes, ready for fertilization. According to LADbible, the American team succeeded in creating 82 functional oocytes—immature eggs—which were then fertilized with sperm in the lab. Of these, about 9 percent developed to the blastocyst stage, a crucial milestone about six days after fertilization, though none progressed further. This stage is typically when embryos are transferred to the uterus in IVF procedures, suggesting that while promising, the technology is far from ready for clinical use.
What does this mean for people struggling with infertility? The potential is staggering. Dr. Paula Amato, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health and Science University, told The Telegraph: "In theory, the technique could result in a limitless number of eggs. The skin cell DNA, however, can come from anyone, even if they personally don’t have any eggs or remaining eggs—older women, women after cancer treatment, people born without eggs, men... So, it’s a way to produce eggs genetically identical to the person providing the skin cell, even if they personally don’t have any eggs, and allows them to reproduce to have a genetically-related child. A same-sex male couple could potentially have a child genetically related to both partners."
It’s not just women facing infertility who could benefit. This breakthrough could allow gay male couples to have children genetically related to both partners, effectively bypassing the need for a biological mother’s DNA. As LADbible notes, "the major breakthrough opens up the possibility of skin DNA from a man being placed inside a donor egg and fertilized by another man, leading to a baby with two biological fathers and no DNA from a woman." This, of course, has profound implications—not just for LGBTQ couples, but for the very concept of parenthood.
Yet, as UnHerd points out, the prospect of a child born without a mother raises deep and troubling questions. For millennia, the certainty of motherhood—"mater semper certa est," as Roman law put it—has been a bedrock of human society. The biological, gestational, and emotional bonds between mother and child have been considered foundational, not just for families, but for healthy psychological development. The English psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott famously argued that an infant’s sense of security depends on the presence of a consistent, attuned caregiver—usually the mother—whose body, touch, and gaze nurture the child’s emerging sense of self. When this presence is disrupted, Winnicott found, children often experience a profound, inarticulable ache.
Harry Harlow’s notorious experiments with rhesus monkeys in the mid-20th century further underscored the importance of maternal care. The baby monkeys, given a choice between a soft surrogate mother and a wire one offering food, overwhelmingly clung to the soft surrogate, demonstrating that nurture and comfort are as vital as sustenance for healthy development. As UnHerd argues, "If such primal needs are obvious in monkeys, how can we dismiss them in human infants?"
Despite these warnings, the language of liberation and choice is already shaping the public discourse around motherless reproduction. The potential to eliminate infertility, free people from the limits of biology, and offer hope to those who’ve lost their eggs due to age or cancer treatment is undeniably appealing. Professor Ying Cheong of the University of Southampton described the findings as "an exciting proof of concept," adding, "While this is still very early laboratory work, in the future it could transform how we understand infertility and miscarriage, and perhaps one day open the door to creating egg- or sperm-like cells for those who have no other options." Professor Richard Anderson of the University of Edinburgh echoed this optimism, noting, "There will be very important safety concerns, but this study is a step towards helping many women have their own genetic children."
But as the science races forward, some experts and commentators urge a pause for reflection. What does it mean for a child to grow up in a world where motherhood is not a given, where even the most intimate act of human creation can be outsourced to the laboratory? Could this lead to increased anxiety, detachment, or disrupted development for children deprived of maternal care in early infancy? UnHerd cautions that, "Giving birth to a child—if we can still use that phrase—should not be seen as a scientific achievement, but as the arrival of a fragile human being into the world, in need of mothering and fathering. This can never be replicated in a lab."
As with many technological advances, the promise of progress comes entwined with ethical dilemmas. The allure of transhumanism—the belief that humanity can and should transcend its biological limitations—offers visions of a future without infertility or tragic accidents of biology. But, as UnHerd warns, "If innovation fails to improve the human condition, then what is its purpose?" The challenge now is to balance the immense therapeutic potential of IVG and related technologies with a sober assessment of what children truly need to thrive.
As researchers continue to refine these techniques, society faces a choice: rush headlong into a future where the bonds of motherhood are optional, or pause to ask the most basic human question—what does the child need? The answer may determine not just the fate of this technology, but the very meaning of family in the 21st century.
