Thirty years ago, on 25 July 1978, the world’s first IVF baby was born in Britain. Louise Brown is now married and has a conceived naturally child of her own. It was a landmark day in our relationship with technology. Louise was to be the first of 4 million children conceived in a Petri dish and transferred to a womb – usually, but not always, their mother’s. From a controversial solution to infertility, in vitro fertilisation swiftly grew into an industry of its own and opened the door to other even more controversial developments, like genetic engineering and stem cell research.

To mark the occasion, the world’s leading science journal, Nature, has asked experts to forecast what reproductive technology will look like in another 30 years. Both the predictions and Nature’s analysis are fascinating reading. They suggest that even more dramatic bioethical challenges lie ahead.

Several scientists believe that the recent emergence of induced pluripotent stem cells – cells which have all the malleability of embryonic stem cells but which are created without destroying embryos – will transform their field. As iPS cells can theoretically morph into any cell in the body, it should be possible to transform them into “artificial” sperm and eggs. This means that anyone can have be the progenitor (the words mother and father hardly seem appropriate) of a child – whether they are six months old or 100 years old. Furthermore, eggs and sperm will no longer be in short supply. Lab technicians will be able to make thousands of them. “They would become objects and would be used as objects,” says Davor Solter, of the Institute of Medical Biology in Singapore.

Artificial wombs are another possibility, some scientists believe. “You could have as many or as few progeny as you want,” muses Dr Solter. However, this could be a double-edged sword. As IVF techniques improve and as the age of viability of unborn children falls, it may be possible to keep aborted babies alive in vats. It might even become unlawful not to do it. An unsettling forecast, to say the least.

Rapid improvements in genetic screening  and in knowledge of the human genome mean that designer babies will be possible. Parents could choose embryos to give them their best chance for a healthy and successful life. But the sheer complexity of making such choices will be daunting for parents.

Several scientists had intriguing words about IVF. Alastair Sutcliffe, of University College London, points out that very little is known about the long-term effects of IVF. What if their health in middle and old age is poor? Nature’s editorial calls for large registries which track the health of IVF children.

What about the ethics of such challenging research? Is this forecast thrilling or threatening? Nature is characteristically contradictory when discussing limits on scientific endeavour: “nothing is sacred in human biology — and researchers should ensure that nothing is diminished about human reproduction by starting it in the lab”. But if nothing is sacred, what is the problem with a “diminished” approach to procreation? Louise Brown’s birthday raises more questions than it answers. ~ Nature, July 17