Loading
What changed between revision 2 and revision 3, compared over the article's markdown source with its frontmatter — so a change to status, evidence or reversibility shows up as the edit it is.
Older · revision 2
Import
Re-import of content/artificial-womb.md — the file changed after the initial import. Not an edit.
17.1 kB
Revision 2
Revision 3
lines 8–14 → 8–147 unchanged lines not shown
categories: ["reproduction", "bodies"]categories: ["reproduction", "bodies"]tags: ["reproduction", "ectogenesis", "prematurity", "neonatology", "bioethics", "medical devices"]tags: ["reproduction", "ectogenesis", "prematurity", "neonatology", "bioethics", "medical devices"]summary: "A device that sustains fetal development outside a body by perfusing the umbilical circulation while the fetus remains immersed in fluid, tested so far only in animals."summary: "A device that sustains fetal development outside a body by perfusing the umbilical circulation while the fetus remains immersed in fluid, tested so far only in animals."updated: "2026-08-23"updated: "2026-10-29"humanEvidence: "No human has been supported by a modern system and no trial has enrolled anyone; the results are from preterm lambs, and 1960s perfusion of previable human fetuses produced no survivors."humanEvidence: "No human has been supported by a modern system and no trial has enrolled anyone; the results are from preterm lambs, and 1960s perfusion of previable human fetuses produced no survivors."access: "Nothing to obtain: the systems exist only as research prototypes in a handful of laboratories, and no regulator has authorised a first-in-human trial."access: "Nothing to obtain: the systems exist only as research prototypes in a handful of laboratories, and no regulator has authorised a first-in-human trial."reversibility: "difficult"reversibility: "difficult"lines 30–36 → 30–3615 unchanged lines not shown
}}`````` **Artificial womb** is the common name for a device that supports a fetus outside a pregnant body by connecting it to an external oxygenator through the umbilical vessels while it remains submerged in a fluid environment. Every system built so far is designed for *partial* ectogenesis: it takes over from a pregnancy already underway, at the edge of viability, and aims to carry the fetus a few more weeks. No device has gestated a mammal from conception, and none has been used in a human. The distinction between continuing a pregnancy and replacing one is the single most important thing about the technology and the thing most often lost in coverage of it.**Artificial womb** is the common name for a device that supports a fetus outside a pregnant body by connecting it to an external oxygenator through the umbilical vessels while it remains submerged in a fluid environment. Every system built so far is designed for *partial* ectogenesis: it takes over from a pregnancy already underway, at the edge of viability, and aims to carry the fetus a few more weeks. No device has gestated a mammal from conception, and none has been used in a human. The difference between continuing a pregnancy and replacing one is the most important fact about the technology, and it is the fact that coverage most often loses. ```keyfacts```keyfacts[[lines 42–71 → 42–715 unchanged lines not shown
## How it works## How it works The design problem is that a fetal lung is not a lung yet. Below roughly 26 weeks of human gestation the alveoli are too few and too thick-walled for gas exchange, and mechanical ventilation of such a lung causes the chronic injury known as bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Conventional neonatal intensive care manages this trade-off; an artificial womb tries to avoid it by never asking the lung to breathe.The design problem starts with the fetal lung, which cannot yet do a lung's job. Below roughly 26 weeks of human gestation the alveoli are too few and too thick-walled for gas exchange, and mechanical ventilation of such a lung causes the chronic injury known as bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Conventional neonatal intensive care manages this trade-off; an artificial womb tries to avoid it by never asking the lung to breathe. ```figure```figure{"key": "biobag-system-design", "caption": "Figure 1 of the 2017 lamb study. The circuit has no pump — the fetal heart drives blood through the low-resistance oxygenator, as it would through a placenta. The photographs show lambs at gestational days 111 and 135."}{"key": "biobag-system-design", "caption": "Figure 1 of the 2017 lamb study. The circuit has no pump: the fetal heart drives blood through the low-resistance oxygenator, as it would through a placenta. The photographs show lambs at gestational days 111 and 135."}`````` Four features distinguish the current systems from an incubator:The current systems differ from an incubator in four ways: - **Umbilical cannulation.** Blood is drawn from and returned to the umbilical vein and arteries, preserving fetal circulation with its right-to-left shunts through the ductus arteriosus and foramen ovale. Neck or chest cannulation, as used in standard extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, disturbs that pattern.- **Umbilical cannulation.** Blood is drawn from and returned to the umbilical vein and arteries, preserving fetal circulation with its right-to-left shunts through the ductus arteriosus and foramen ovale. Neck or chest cannulation, as used in standard extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, disturbs that pattern.- **A pumpless circuit.** In the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia design, the fetal heart alone drives blood through a low-resistance membrane oxygenator. Removing the pump removes a major source of haemolysis and of pressure injury to a fetal heart that cannot tolerate afterload.- **A pumpless circuit.** In the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia design, the fetal heart alone drives blood through a low-resistance membrane oxygenator. Removing the pump removes a major source of haemolysis and of pressure injury to a fetal heart that cannot tolerate afterload.- **Fluid immersion.** The fetus floats in a sterile, circulating fluid resembling amniotic fluid, which it swallows and which fills the lungs. Fluid distension is part of normal lung growth; air is not.- **Fluid immersion.** The fetus floats in a sterile, circulating fluid resembling amniotic fluid, which it swallows and which fills the lungs. Fluid distension is part of normal lung growth; air is not.- **A closed, sterile bag.** The enclosure excludes light, handling, and airborne organisms, addressing infection as a leading cause of death in extremely preterm infants.- **A closed, sterile bag.** The enclosure excludes light, handling, and airborne organisms, addressing infection as a leading cause of death in extremely preterm infants. Oxygenation is titrated to fetal rather than neonatal targets, which are much lower than adult values, and it relies on the fetus's own haemoglobin rather than any [[artificial-blood|oxygen-carrying substitute]]. Nutrition is delivered parenterally. The circuit is, in engineering terms, a carefully tuned variant of extracorporeal life support, closer to a [[artificial-heart|mechanical circulatory support]] problem than to anything in reproductive medicine.Oxygenation is titrated to fetal rather than neonatal targets, which are much lower than adult values, and it relies on the fetus's own haemoglobin rather than any [[artificial-blood|oxygen-carrying substitute]]. Nutrition is delivered parenterally. In engineering terms the circuit is a carefully tuned variant of extracorporeal life support, closer to a [[artificial-heart|mechanical circulatory support]] problem than to anything in reproductive medicine. ## Development history## Development history ```timeline```timeline[[ { "year": "1923", "title": "The word is coined", "text": "J. B. S. Haldane proposes 'ectogenesis' in Daedalus, imagining gestation moved wholly outside the body." }, { "year": "1923", "title": "The word is coined", "text": "J. B. S. Haldane proposes 'ectogenesis' in Daedalus, imagining gestation moved wholly outside the body." }, { "year": "1950s–1960s", "title": "First perfusion attempts", "text": "Researchers including Robert Goodlin perfuse previable human fetuses in pressurised oxygenated fluid. Survival is measured in hours and the work draws lasting ethical criticism." }, { "year": "1950s-1960s", "title": "First perfusion attempts", "text": "Researchers including Robert Goodlin perfuse previable human fetuses in pressurised oxygenated fluid. Survival is measured in hours and the work draws lasting ethical criticism." }, { "year": "1980s–1990s", "title": "Goat fetuses in Tokyo", "text": "Yoshinori Kuwabara's group maintains goat fetuses in an extrauterine incubation system for up to several weeks, but with poor neurological outcomes and dependence on paralysis and sedation." }, { "year": "1980s-1990s", "title": "Goat fetuses in Tokyo", "text": "Yoshinori Kuwabara's group maintains goat fetuses in an extrauterine incubation system for up to several weeks, but with poor neurological outcomes and dependence on paralysis and sedation." }, { "year": "2017", "title": "The biobag", "text": "A Philadelphia team reports eight preterm lambs supported for up to four weeks with normal growth, lung maturation and myelination." }, { "year": "2017", "title": "The biobag", "text": "A Philadelphia team reports eight preterm lambs supported for up to four weeks with normal growth, lung maturation and myelination." }, { "year": "2019–2024", "title": "Parallel programmes", "text": "The EVE platform in Australia and Japan and a European perinatal life support consortium pursue related designs; CHOP's work is commercialised through Vitara Biomedical." }, { "year": "2019-2024", "title": "Parallel programmes", "text": "The EVE platform in Australia and Japan and a European perinatal life support consortium pursue related designs; CHOP's work is commercialised through Vitara Biomedical." }, { "year": "2023", "title": "Regulators take it up", "text": "The US Food and Drug Administration convenes its Pediatric Advisory Committee to discuss what evidence a first-in-human trial would require." } { "year": "2023", "title": "Regulators take it up", "text": "The US Food and Drug Administration convenes its Pediatric Advisory Committee to discuss what evidence a first-in-human trial would require." }]]``````lines 78–86 → 78–866 unchanged lines not shown
## Current state## Current state As of 2026 no human has been supported by an artificial womb, and no clinical trial has been publicly reported as having enrolled a participant. On the [[technology-readiness-level|standard readiness scale]] the leading systems sit at validation in a relevant environment: they work reliably in a large-animal model that resembles the intended use but is not it. The FDA's 2023 advisory meeting did not authorise a trial; it aired the questions a sponsor would have to answer, and those questions turned out to be harder than the engineering.[^fda2023]As of 2026 no human has been supported by an artificial womb, and no clinical trial has been publicly reported as having enrolled a participant. On the [[technology-readiness-level|standard readiness scale]] the leading systems sit at validation in a relevant environment: they work reliably in a large-animal model that resembles the intended use but is not it. The FDA's 2023 advisory meeting did not authorise a trial. It aired the questions a sponsor would have to answer, and those have turned out to be harder than the engineering.[^fda2023] The central one is comparison. The intended population is infants born at 22 to 24 weeks, where outcomes vary enormously between centres and where the decision to resuscitate at all is a matter of parental choice and institutional policy. A trial would have to randomise between the device and active neonatal intensive care at a moment of crisis, obtain consent from parents in the middle of a preterm delivery, and define success in terms of long-term neurodevelopment rather than survival to discharge. Committee members also raised the problem of how a device tested in lambs translates to a human fetus whose brain development is on a different schedule, and how a failed cannulation would be handled.Chief among them is the comparator. The intended population is infants born at 22 to 24 weeks, where outcomes vary enormously between centres and where the decision to resuscitate at all is a matter of parental choice and institutional policy. A trial would have to randomise between the device and active neonatal intensive care at a moment of crisis, obtain consent from parents in the middle of a preterm delivery, and define success in terms of long-term neurodevelopment rather than survival to discharge. Committee members also raised the problem of how a device tested in lambs translates to a human fetus whose brain development is on a different schedule, and how a failed cannulation would be handled. The technology's regulatory identity is itself unsettled. It is a medical device, but one whose subject may not have legal personhood under the law of the jurisdiction where it is used, and whose status is different again if it is delivered by caesarean specifically to be placed in the device. The legal scholar Elizabeth Chloe Romanis has proposed the term "gestateling" for an entity that is neither fetus nor neonate because it is neither gestating in a body nor breathing air; the term has no statutory standing anywhere.The technology's regulatory identity is itself unsettled. It is a medical device, but one whose subject may not have legal personhood under the law of the jurisdiction where it is used, and whose status is different again if it is delivered by caesarean specifically to be placed in the device. The legal scholar Elizabeth Chloe Romanis has proposed the term "gestateling" for an entity that is neither fetus nor neonate because it is neither gestating in a body nor breathing air; the term has no statutory standing anywhere. lines 89–122 → 89–1222 unchanged lines not shown
## Complete ectogenesis## Complete ectogenesis Gestating a human from fertilisation to term outside a body — *complete* ectogenesis, in theGestating a human from fertilisation to term outside a body, which is *complete* ectogenesis invocabulary set out in [[ectogenesis]] — is a different technical problem, not a longer version of thethe vocabulary set out in [[ectogenesis]], is a separate technical problem rather than a longersame one. The unsolved parts are at the beginning, not the end. The only established way for someone without a functioning uterus to carry a pregnancy runs in the opposite direction: [[uterus-transplantation]] moves the organ into the patient rather than the fetus into a machine.version of partial support, and its unsolved parts lie at the beginning of gestation. The only established way for someone without a functioning uterus to carry a pregnancy runs in the opposite direction: [[uterus-transplantation]] moves the organ into the patient rather than the fetus into a machine. Implantation and placentation involve an invasive, immunologically negotiated interaction between trophoblast and maternal endometrium that no device reproduces. Trophoblast [[organoids|organoids]] grown from placental tissue reproduce part of the fetal side of that exchange in a dish, and endometrial cultures reproduce part of the maternal side, but nobody has assembled a functioning placenta from either. Culture systems have made progress at both ends of the gap and none in the middle. Human embryos are routinely cultured to the blastocyst stage for [[embryo-selection]], and research protocols have extended culture to around the [[synthetic-embryos|fourteen-day]] limit that governs such work in most jurisdictions. At the other end, the artificial womb handles the last trimester in animals. Between roughly two weeks and twenty-two weeks lies the entire process of placental development, organogenesis, and the endocrine dialogue between fetus and pregnant body.Implantation and placentation involve an invasive, immunologically negotiated interaction between trophoblast and maternal endometrium that no device reproduces. Trophoblast [[organoids|organoids]] grown from placental tissue reproduce part of the fetal side of that exchange in a dish, and endometrial cultures reproduce part of the maternal side, but nobody has assembled a functioning placenta from either. Culture systems have advanced at both ends of the gap and not at all in the middle. Human embryos are routinely cultured to the blastocyst stage for [[embryo-selection]], and research protocols have extended culture to around the [[synthetic-embryos|fourteen-day]] limit that governs such work in most jurisdictions. At the other end, the artificial womb handles the last trimester in animals. Between roughly two weeks and twenty-two weeks lies the entire process of placental development, organogenesis, and the endocrine dialogue between fetus and pregnant body. The most notable advance in the middle range is not human. A Weizmann Institute group cultured mouse embryos ex utero from before gastrulation through late organogenesis in a rotating-bottle system with continuous perfusion and controlled gas pressure, reaching roughly half of mouse gestation.[^hanna2021] Extending that to a species with an invasive haemochorial placenta and a nine-month gestation is not a matter of scaling the apparatus.The most significant advance in the middle range has come in mice. A Weizmann Institute group cultured mouse embryos ex utero from before gastrulation through late organogenesis in a rotating-bottle system with continuous perfusion and controlled gas pressure, reaching roughly half of mouse gestation.[^hanna2021] Extending that to a species with an invasive haemochorial placenta and a nine-month gestation would take more than scaling up the apparatus. > [!debate] Whether complete ectogenesis is even a goal> [!debate] Whether complete ectogenesis is even a goal> Some researchers treat partial support as a stepping stone; others argue the two problems share almost no engineering, and that framing neonatal life support as proto-ectogenesis has attracted attention and opposition the clinical programme did not need.> Some researchers treat partial support as a stepping stone; others argue the two problems share almost no engineering, and that framing neonatal life support as proto-ectogenesis has attracted attention and opposition the clinical programme did not need. ## Limitations and risks## Limitations and risks Cannulating a vessel a few millimetres wide, in a fetus weighing under 600 grams, within minutes of delivery, is the immediate technical constraint. Umbilical vessels constrict on exposure and the window is short.The immediate technical constraint is cannulation of a vessel a few millimetres wide, in a fetus weighing under 600 grams, within minutes of delivery. Umbilical vessels constrict on exposure, so the window is short. Anticoagulation is the chronic one. Any extracorporeal circuit demands systemic anticoagulation, and extremely preterm infants are already at high risk of intraventricular haemorrhage. The trade-off between circuit thrombosis and brain bleeding has no obviously safe setting and is the failure mode most likely to appear first in humans. Infection of an indwelling circuit, haemolysis, and the unknown long-term effects of a fluid environment without maternal hormonal signalling round out the list.Anticoagulation is the chronic constraint. Any extracorporeal circuit demands systemic anticoagulation, and extremely preterm infants are already at high risk of intraventricular haemorrhage. The trade-off between circuit thrombosis and brain bleeding has no obviously safe setting and is the failure mode most likely to appear first in humans. Infection of an indwelling circuit, haemolysis, and the unknown long-term effects of a fluid environment without maternal hormonal signalling round out the list. There is also a scope-creep risk that is social rather than technical. A device that improves outcomes at 22 weeks changes what counts as viable, and viability is a threshold written into abortion law in several countries, most consequentially in the United States before 2022 and in the statutory time limits used elsewhere. Bioethicists on both sides of the abortion debate have noted that the technology decouples "can survive outside the body" from "can survive without a body's support", which is the distinction the legal concept was tracking. Whether courts would follow the technology is unresolved, and it is one of the clearest live cases for the [[precautionary-principle|precautionary reasoning]] applied to medical devices whose second-order effects run through law rather than physiology.A further risk, social rather than technical, is scope creep. A device that improves outcomes at 22 weeks changes what counts as viable, and viability is a threshold written into abortion law in several countries, most consequentially in the United States before 2022 and in the statutory time limits used elsewhere. Bioethicists on both sides of the abortion debate have noted that the technology decouples "can survive outside the body" from "can survive without a body's support", which is the distinction the legal concept was tracking. Whether courts would follow the technology is unresolved. The question is one of the clearest live cases for the [[precautionary-principle|precautionary reasoning]] applied to medical devices whose second-order effects run through law rather than physiology. ## Social and ethical arguments## Social and ethical arguments Feminist writing on ectogenesis has been split since Shulamith Firestone argued in 1970 that removing gestation from women's bodies would remove the biological basis of their subordination; critics answered that the apparatus would transfer authority over fetal welfare from pregnant people to clinicians and courts.[^firestone1970] That argument concerns a machine nobody has built. The device on the bench raises a smaller and harder set of questions: what parents can meaningfully be told during a preterm delivery, who decides when support is withdrawn from an entity the law has no name for, and what obligation a sponsor incurs to follow the survivors for the decades over which the outcomes of interest appear.Feminist writing on ectogenesis has been split since Shulamith Firestone argued in 1970 that removing gestation from women's bodies would remove the biological basis of their subordination; critics answered that the apparatus would transfer authority over fetal welfare from pregnant people to clinicians and courts.[^firestone1970] That debate concerns a machine nobody has built. The device on the bench raises a smaller and harder set of questions: what parents can meaningfully be told during a preterm delivery, who decides when support is withdrawn from an entity the law has no name for, and what obligation a sponsor incurs to follow the survivors for the decades over which the outcomes of interest appear. Bioconservative objections of the kind catalogued in [[bioconservatism]] have attached to the technology mainly through its imagined form rather than its actual one, treating a manufactured gestation as a category error about how humans come into the world. Advocates in the tradition of [[procreative-beneficence]] make the opposite move, arguing that if a device produces better outcomes for infants who would otherwise die or survive disabled, the burden of justification falls on refusing it. Disability scholars, whose position is set out in [[disability-rights-and-enhancement]], have raised a third concern: that a technology framed around rescuing infants at 22 weeks will be evaluated on survival statistics rather than on the lives of the survivors.Bioconservative objections of the kind catalogued in [[bioconservatism]] have attached mostly to the technology's imagined form rather than its actual one, treating a manufactured gestation as a category error about how humans come into the world. Advocates in the tradition of [[procreative-beneficence]] make the opposite move, arguing that if a device produces better outcomes for infants who would otherwise die or survive disabled, the burden of justification falls on refusing it. Disability scholars, whose position is set out in [[disability-rights-and-enhancement]], have raised a third concern: that a technology framed around rescuing infants at 22 weeks will be evaluated on survival statistics rather than on the lives of the survivors. Distributional questions follow the pattern set out in [[access-and-inequality]]. Extremely preterm birth is unevenly distributed, concentrated among populations with the least access to tertiary neonatal care, and a device requiring a specialised surgical team at the moment of delivery is not obviously going to reach them. The counterargument is that neonatal intensive care itself followed the same diffusion path and is now widespread in high-income systems.Distributional questions follow the pattern set out in [[access-and-inequality]]. Extremely preterm birth is unevenly distributed, concentrated among populations with the least access to tertiary neonatal care, and a device requiring a specialised surgical team at the moment of delivery is not obviously going to reach them. The counterargument is that neonatal intensive care itself followed the same diffusion path and is now widespread in high-income systems. For the wider argument about detaching reproduction from bodies, including its interaction with [[in-vitro-gametogenesis]], the popular imagery collected under [[designer-babies]], and claims about [[morphological-freedom]], see [[ectogenesis]]. The near-term question is narrower and sharper: whether any institutional review board will approve a first-in-human trial in a population that cannot consent, for a device whose comparator is a therapy that already saves some of these infants, on the strength of evidence from sheep.For the wider argument about detaching reproduction from bodies, including its interaction with [[in-vitro-gametogenesis]], the popular imagery collected under [[designer-babies]], and claims about [[morphological-freedom]], see [[ectogenesis]]. The near-term question is narrower: whether any institutional review board will approve a first-in-human trial in a population that cannot consent, for a device whose comparator is a therapy that already saves some of these infants, on the strength of evidence from sheep. ## See also## See also removed, struck through added, underlinedLine numbers count the serialised markdown of each revision, frontmatter included.
117 lines are the same in both revisions, and 52 of them are not shown. Neither revision here is necessarily the current article — read Artificial womb for the text this wiki stands behind today.