The US withdrawal from the WHO will hurt us all

This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here.

On January 20, his first day in office, US president Donald Trump signed an executive order to withdraw the US from the World Health Organization. “Ooh, that’s a big one,” he said as he was handed the document.

The US is the biggest donor to the WHO, and the loss of this income is likely to have a significant impact on the organization, which develops international health guidelines, investigates disease outbreaks, and acts as an information-sharing hub for member states.

But the US will also lose out. “It’s a very tragic and sad event that could only hurt the United States in the long run,” says William Moss, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.

Trump appears to take issue with the amount the US donates to the WHO. He points out that it makes a much bigger contribution than China, a country with a population four times that of the US. “It seems a little unfair to me,” he said as he prepared to sign the executive order.

It is true that the US is far and away the biggest financial supporter of the WHO. The US contributed $1.28 billion over the two-year period covering 2022 and 2023. By comparison, the second-largest donor, Germany, contributed $856 million in the same period. The US currently contributes 14.5% of the WHO’s total budget.

But it’s not as though the WHO sends a billion-dollar bill to the US. All member states are required to pay membership dues, which are calculated as a percentage of a country’s gross domestic product. For the US, this figure comes to $130 million. China pays $87.6 million. But the vast majority of the US’s contributions to the WHO are made on a voluntary basis—in recent years, the donations have been part of multibillion-dollar spending on global health by the US government. (Separately, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation contributed $830 million over 2022 and 2023.)

There’s a possibility that other member nations will increase their donations to help cover the shortfall left by the US’s withdrawal. But it is not clear who will step up—or what implications it will have to change the structure of donations.

Martin McKee, a professor of European public health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, thinks it is unlikely that European members will increase their contributions by much. China, India, Brazil, South Africa, and the Gulf states, on the other hand, may be more likely to pay more. But again, it isn’t clear how this will pan out, or whether any of these countries will expect greater influence over global health policy decisions as a result of increasing their donations.

WHO funds are spent on a range of global health projects—programs to eradicate polio, rapidly respond to health emergencies, improve access to vaccines and medicines, develop pandemic prevention strategies, and more. The loss of US funding is likely to have a significant impact on at least some of these programs.

“Diseases don’t stick to national boundaries, hence this decision is not only concerning for the US, but in fact for every country in the world,” says Pauline Scheelbeek at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.“With the US no longer reporting to the WHO nor funding part of this process, the evidence on which public health interventions and solutions should be based is incomplete.”

“It’s going to hurt global health,” adds Moss. “It’s going to come back to bite us.”

There’s more on how the withdrawal could affect health programs, vaccine coverage, and pandemic preparedness in this week’s coverage.


Now read the rest of The Checkup

Read more from MIT Technology Review‘s archive

This isn’t the first time Donald Trump has signaled his desire for the US to leave the WHO. He proposed a withdrawal during his last term, in 2020. While the WHO is not perfect, it needs more power and funding, not less, Charles Kenny, director of technology and development at the Center for Global Development, argued at the time.

The move drew condemnation from those working in public health then, too. The editor in chief of the medical journal The Lancet called it “a crime against humanity,” as Charlotte Jee reported.

In 1974, the WHO launched an ambitious program to get lifesaving vaccines to all children around the world. Fifty years on, vaccines are thought to have averted 154 million deaths—including 146 million in children under the age of five. 

The WHO has also seen huge success in its efforts to eradicate polio. Today, wild forms of the virus have been eradicated in all but two countries. But vaccine-derived forms of the virus can still crop up around the world.

At the end of a round of discussions in September among WHO member states working on a pandemic agreement, director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus remarked, “The next pandemic will not wait for us, whether from a flu virus like H5N1, another coronavirus, or another family of viruses we don’t yet know about.” The H5N1 virus has been circulating on US dairy farms for months now, and the US is preparing for potential human outbreaks.

From around the web

People with cancer paid $45,000 for an experimental blood-filtering treatment, delivered at a clinic in Antigua, after being misled about its effectiveness. Six of them have died since their treatments. (The New York Times)

The Trump administration has instructed federal health agencies to pause all external communications, such as health advisories, weekly scientific reports, updates to websites, and social media posts. (The Washington Post)

A new “virtual retina,” modeled on human retinas, has been developed to study the impact of retinal implants. The three-dimensional model simulates over 10,000 neurons. (Brain Stimulation)

Trump has signed an executive order stating that “it is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female.” The document “defies decades of research into how human bodies grow and develop,” STAT reports, and represents “a dramatic failure to understand biology,” according to a neuroscientist who studies the development of sex. (STAT)

Attention, summer holiday planners: Biting sandflies in the Mediterranean region are transmitting Toscana virus at an increasing rate. The virus is a major cause of central nervous system disorders in the region. Italy saw a 2.6-fold increase in the number of reported infections between the 2016–21 period and 2022–23. (Eurosurveillance)

This is what might happen if the US withdraws from the WHO

On January 20, his first day in office, US president Donald Trump signed an executive order to withdraw the US from the World Health Organization. “Ooh, that’s a big one,” he said as he was handed the document.

The US is the biggest donor to the WHO, and the loss of this income is likely to have a significant impact on the organization, which develops international health guidelines, investigates disease outbreaks, and acts as an information-sharing hub for member states.

But the US will also lose out. “It’s a very tragic and sad event that could only hurt the United States in the long run,” says William Moss, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.

A little unfair?

Trump appears to take issue with the amount the US donates to the WHO. He points out that it makes a much bigger contribution than China, a country with a population four times that of the US. “It seems a little unfair to me,” he said as he prepared to sign the executive order.

It is true that the US is far and away the biggest financial supporter of the WHO. The US contributed $1.28 billion over the two-year period covering 2022 and 2023. By comparison, the second-largest donor, Germany, contributed $856 million in the same period. The US currently contributes 14.5% of the WHO’s total budget.

But it’s not as though the WHO sends a billion-dollar bill to the US. All member states are required to pay membership dues, which are calculated as a percentage of a country’s gross domestic product. For the US, this figure comes to $130 million. China pays $87.6 million. But the vast majority of the US’s contributions to the WHO are made on a voluntary basis—in recent years, the donations have been part of multibillion-dollar spending on global health by the US government. (Separately, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation contributed $830 million over 2022 and 2023.)

There’s a possibility that other member nations will increase their donations to help cover the shortfall left by the US’s withdrawal. But it is not clear who will step up—or what implications changing the structure of donations will have.

Martin McKee, a professor of European public health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, thinks it is unlikely that European members will increase their contributions by much. The Gulf states, China, India, Brazil, and South Africa, on the other hand, may be more likely to pay more. But again, it isn’t clear how this will pan out, or whether any of these countries will expect greater influence over global health policy decisions as a result of increasing their donations.

Deep impacts

WHO funds are spent on a range of global health projects—programs to eradicate polio, rapidly respond to health emergencies, improve access to vaccines and medicines, develop pandemic prevention strategies, and more. The loss of US funding is likely to have a significant impact on at least some of these programs.

It is not clear which programs will lose funding, or when they will be affected. The US is required to give 12 months’ notice to withdraw its membership, but voluntary contributions might stop before that time is up. 

For the last few years, WHO member states have been negotiating a pandemic agreement designed to improve collaboration on preparing for future pandemics. The agreement is set to be finalized in 2025. But these discussions will be disrupted by the US withdrawal, says McKee. It will “create confusion about how effective any agreement will be and what it will look like,” he says.

The agreement itself won’t make as big an impact without the US as a signatory, either, says Moss, who is also a member of a WHO vaccine advisory committee. The US would not be held to information-sharing standards that other countries could benefit from, and it might not be privy to important health information from other member nations. The global community might also lose out on the US’s resources and expertise. “Having a major country like the United States not be a part of that really undermines the value of any pandemic agreement,” he says.

McKee thinks that the loss of funding will also affect efforts to eradicate polio, and to control outbreaks of mpox in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, and Burundi, which continue to report hundreds of cases per week. The virus “has the potential to spread, including to the US,” he points out.

“Diseases don’t stick to national boundaries, hence this decision is not only concerning for the US, but in fact for every country in the world,” says Pauline Scheelbeek at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. “With the US no longer reporting to the WHO nor funding part of this process, the evidence on which public health interventions and solutions should be based is incomplete.”

Moss is concerned about the potential for outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, is a prominent antivaccine advocate, and Moss worries about potential changes to vaccination-based health policies in the US. That, combined with a weakening of the WHO’s ability to control outbreaks, could be a “double whammy,” he says: “We’re setting ourselves up for large measles disease outbreaks in the United States.”

At the same time, the US is up against another growing threat to public health: the circulation of bird flu on poultry and dairy farms. The US has seen outbreaks of the H5N1 virus on poultry farms in all states, and the virus has been detected in 928 dairy herds across 16 states, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. There have been 67 reported human cases in the US, and one person has died. While we don’t yet have evidence that the virus can spread between people, the US and other countries are already preparing for potential outbreaks.

But this preparation relies on a thorough and clear understanding of what is happening on the ground. The WHO provides an important role in information sharing—countries report early signs of outbreaks to the agency, which then shares the information with its members. This kind of information not only allows countries to develop strategies to limit the spread of disease but can also allow them to share genetic sequences of viruses and develop vaccines. Member nations need to know what’s happening in the US, and the US needs to know what’s happening globally. “Both of those channels of communication would be hindered by this,” says Moss.

As if all of that weren’t enough, the US also stands to suffer in terms of its reputation as a leader in global public health. “By saying to the world ‘We don’t care about your health,’ it sends a message that is likely to reflect badly on it,” says McKee. “It’s a classic lose-lose situation.”

“It’s going to hurt global health,” says Moss. “It’s going to come back to bite us.”

Update: this article was amended to include commentary from Pauline Scheelbeek.

What to expect from Neuralink in 2025

MIT Technology Review’s What’s Next series looks across industries, trends, and technologies to give you a first look at the future. You can read the rest of them here.

In November, a young man named Noland Arbaugh announced he’d be livestreaming from his home for three days straight. His broadcast was in some ways typical fare: a backyard tour, video games, meet mom.

The difference is that Arbaugh, who is paralyzed, has thin electrode-studded wires installed in his brain, which he used to move a computer mouse on a screen, click menus, and play chess. The implant, called N1, was installed last year by neurosurgeons working with Neuralink, Elon Musk’s brain-interface company.

The possibility of listening to neurons and using their signals to move a computer cursor was first demonstrated more than 20 years ago in a lab setting. Now, Arbaugh’s livestream is an indicator that Neuralink is a whole lot closer to creating a plug-and-play experience that can restore people’s daily ability to roam the web and play games, giving them what the company has called “digital freedom.”

But this is not yet a commercial product. The current studies are small-scale—they are true experiments, explorations of how the device works and how it can be improved. For instance, at some point last year, more than half the electrode-studded “threads” inserted into Aurbaugh’s brain retracted, and his control over the device worsened; Neuralink rushed to implement fixes so he could use his remaining electrodes to move the mouse.

Neuralink did not reply to emails seeking comment, but here is what our analysis of its public statements leads us to expect from the company in 2025.

More patients

How many people will get these implants? Elon Musk keeps predicting huge numbers. In August, he posted on X: “If all goes well, there will be hundreds of people with Neuralinks within a few years, maybe tens of thousands within five years, millions within 10 years.”

In reality, the actual pace is slower—a lot slower. That’s because in a study of a novel device, it’s typical for the first patients to be staged months apart, to allow time to monitor for problems. 

Neuralink has publicly announced that two people have received an implant: Arbaugh and a man referred to only as “Alex,” who received his in July or August. 

Then, on January 8, Musk disclosed during an online interview that there was now a third person with an implant. “We’ve got now three patients, three humans with Neuralinks implanted, and they are all working …well,” Musk said. During 2025, he added, “we expect to hopefully do, I don’t know, 20 or 30 patients.”  

Barring major setbacks, expect the pace of implants to increase—although perhaps not as fast as Musk says. In November, Neuralink updated its US trial listing to include space for five volunteers (up from three), and it also opened a trial in Canada with room for six. Considering these two studies only, Neuralink would carry out at least two more implants by the end of 2025 and eight by the end of 2026.

However, by opening further international studies, Neuralink could increase the pace of the experiments.

Better control

So how good is Arbaugh’s control over the mouse? You can get an idea by trying a game called Webgrid, where you try to click quickly on a moving target. The program translates your speed into a measure of information transfer: bits per second. 

Neuralink claims Arbaugh reached a rate of over nine bits per second, doubling the old brain-interface record. The median able-bodied user scores around 10 bits per second, according to Neuralink.

And yet during his livestream, Arbaugh complained that his mouse control wasn’t very good because his “model” was out of date. It was a reference to how his imagined physical movements get mapped to mouse movements. That mapping degrades over hours and days, and to recalibrate it, he has said, he spends as long as 45 minutes doing a set of retraining tasks on his monitor, such as imagining moving a dot from a center point to the edge of a circle.

Noland Arbaugh stops to calibrate during a livestream on X
@MODDEDQUAD VIA X

Improving the software that sits between Arbaugh’s brain and the mouse is a big area of focus for Neuralink—one where the company is still experimenting and making significant changes. Among the goals: cutting the recalibration time to a few minutes. “We want them to feel like they are in the F1 [Formula One] car, not the minivan,” Bliss Chapman, who leads the BCI software team, told the podcaster Lex Fridman last year.

Device changes

Before Neuralink ever seeks approval to sell its brain interface, it will have to lock in a final device design that can be tested in a “pivotal trial” involving perhaps 20 to 40 patients, to show it really works as intended. That type of study could itself take a year or two to carry out and hasn’t yet been announced.

In fact, Neuralink is still tweaking its implant in significant ways—for instance, by trying to increase the number of electrodes or extend the battery life. This month, Musk said the next human tests would be using an “upgraded Neuralink device.”

The company is also still developing the surgical robot, called R1, that’s used to implant the device. It functions like a sewing machine: A surgeon uses R1 to thread the electrode wires into people’s brains. According to Neuralink’s job listings, improving the R1 robot and making the implant process entirely automatic is a major goal of the company. That’s partly to meet Musk’s predictions of a future where millions of people have an implant, since there wouldn’t be enough neurosurgeons in the world to put them all in manually. 

“We want to get to the point where it’s one click,” Neuralink president Dongjin Seo told Fridman last year.

Robot arm

Late last year, Neuralink opened a companion study through which it says some of its existing implant volunteers will get to try using their brain activity to control not only a computer mouse but other types of external devices, including an “assistive robotic arm.”

We haven’t yet seen what Neuralink’s robotic arm looks like—whether it’s a tabletop research device or something that could be attached to a wheelchair and used at home to complete daily tasks.

But it’s clear such a device could be helpful. During Aurbaugh’s livestream he frequently asked other people to do simple things for him, like brush his hair or put on his hat.

Arbaugh demonstrates the use of Imagined Movement Control.
@MODDEDQUAD VIA X

And using brains to control robots is definitely possible—although so far only in a controlled research setting. In tests using a different brain implant, carried out at the University of Pittsburgh in 2012, a paralyzed woman named Jan Scheuermann was able to use a robot arm to stack blocks and plastic cups about as well as a person who’d had a severe stroke—impressive, since she couldn’t actually move her own limbs.

There are several practical obstacles to using a robot arm at home. One is developing a robot that’s safe and useful. Another, as noted by Wired, is that the calibration steps to maintain control over an arm that can make 3D movements and grasp objects could be onerous and time consuming.

Vision implant

In September, Neuralink said it had received “breakthrough device designation” from the FDA for a version of its implant that could be used to restore limited vision to blind people. The system, which it calls Blindsight, would work by sending electrical impulses directly into a volunteer’s visual cortex, producing spots of light called phosphenes. If there are enough spots, they can be organized into a simple, pixelated form of vision, as previously demonstrated by academic researchers.

The FDA designation is not the same as permission to start the vision study. Instead, it’s a promise by the agency to speed up review steps, including agreements around what a trial should look like. Right now, it’s impossible to guess when a Neuralink vision trial could start, but it won’t necessarily be this year. 

More money

Neuralink last raised money in 2023, collecting around $325 million from investors in a funding round that valued the company at over $3 billion, according to Pitchbook. Ryan Tanaka, who publishes a podcast about the company, Neura Pod, says he thinks Neuralink will raise more money this year and that the valuation of the private company could double.

Fighting regulators

Neuralink has attracted plenty of scrutiny from news reporters, animal-rights campaigners, and even fraud investigators at the Securities and Exchange Commission. Many of the questions surround its treatment of test animals and whether it rushed to try the implant in people.

More recently, Musk has started using his X platform to badger and bully heads of state and was named by Donald Trump to co-lead a so-called Department of Government Efficiency, which Musk says will “get rid of nonsensical regulations” and potentially gut some DC agencies. 

During 2025, watch for whether Musk uses his digital bullhorn to give health regulators pointed feedback on how they’re handling Neuralink.

Other efforts

Don’t forget that Neuralink isn’t the only company working on brain implants. A company called Synchron has one that’s inserted into the brain through a blood vessel, which it’s also testing in human trials of brain control over computers. Other companies, including Paradromics, Precision Neuroscience, and BlackRock Neurotech, are also developing advanced brain-computer interfaces.

Special thanks to Ryan Tanaka of Neura Pod for pointing us to Neuralink’s public announcements and projections.

Deciding the fate of “leftover” embryos

This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here.

Over the past few months, I’ve been working on a piece about IVF embryos. The goal of in vitro fertilization is to create babies via a bit of lab work: Trigger the release of lots of eggs, introduce them to sperm in a lab, transfer one of the resulting embryos into a person’s uterus, and cross your fingers for a healthy pregnancy. Sometimes it doesn’t work. But often it does. For the article, I explored what happens to the healthy embryos that are left over.

I spoke to Lisa Holligan, who had IVF in the UK around five years ago. Holligan donated her “genetically abnormal” embryos for scientific research. But she still has one healthy embryo frozen in storage. And she doesn’t know what to do with it.

She’s not the only one struggling with the decision. “Leftover” embryos are kept frozen in storage tanks, where they sit in little straws, invisible to the naked eye, their growth paused in a state of suspended animation. What happens next is down to personal choice—but that choice can be limited by a complex web of laws and ethical and social factors.

These days, responsible IVF clinics will always talk to people about the possibility of having leftover embryos before they begin treatment. Intended parents will sign a form indicating what they would like to happen to those embryos. Typically, that means deciding early on whether they might like any embryos they don’t end up using to be destroyed or donated, either to someone else trying to conceive or for research.

But it can be really difficult to make these decisions before you’ve even started treatment. People seeking fertility treatment will usually have spent a long time trying to get pregnant. They are hoping for healthy embryos, and some can’t imagine having any left over—or how they might feel about them.

For a lot of people, embryos are not just balls of cells. They hold the potential for life, after all. Some people see them as children, waiting to be born. Some even name their embryos, or call them their “freezer babies.” Others see them as the product of a long, exhausting, and expensive IVF journey.

Holligan says that she initially considered donating her embryo to another person, but her husband disagreed. He saw the embryo as their child and said he wouldn’t feel comfortable with giving it up to another family. “I started having these thoughts about a child coming to me when they’re older, saying they’ve had a terrible life, and [asking] ‘Why didn’t you have me?’” she told me.

Holligan lives in the UK, where you can store your embryos for up to 55 years. Destroying or donating them are also options. That’s not the case in other countries. In Italy, for example, embryos cannot be destroyed or donated. Any that are frozen will remain that way forever, unless the law changes at some point.

In the US, regulations vary by state. The patchwork of laws means that one state can bestow a legal status on embryos, giving them the same rights as children, while another might have no legislation in place at all.

No one knows for sure how many embryos are frozen in storage tanks, but the figure is thought to be somewhere between 1 million and 10 million in the US alone. Some of these embryos have been in storage for years or decades. In some cases, the intended parents have deliberately chosen this, opting to pay hundreds of dollars per year in fees.

But in other cases, clinics have lost touch with their clients. Many of these former clients have stopped paying for the storage of their embryos, but without up-to-date consent forms, clinics can be reluctant to destroy them. What if the person comes back and wants to use those embryos after all?

“Most clinics, if they have any hesitation or doubt or question, will err on the side of holding on to those embryos and not discarding them,” says Sigal Klipstein, a reproductive endocrinologist at InVia Fertility Center in Chicago, who also chairs the ethics committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. “Because it’s kind of like a one-way ticket.”

Klipstein thinks one of the reasons why some embryos end up “abandoned” in storage is that the people who created them can’t bring themselves to destroy them. “It’s just very emotionally difficult for someone who has wanted so much to have a family,” she tells me.

Klipstein says she regularly talks to her patients about what to do with leftover embryos. Even people who make the decision with confidence can change their minds, she says. “We’ve all had those patients who have discarded embryos and then come back six months or a year later and said: ‘Oh, I wish I had those embryos,’” she tells me. “Those [embryos may have been] their best chance of pregnancy.”

Those who do want to discard their embryos have options. Often, the embryos will simply be exposed to air and then disposed of. But some clinics will also offer to transfer them at a time or place where a pregnancy is extremely unlikely to result. This “compassionate transfer,” as it is known, might be viewed as a more “natural” way to dispose of the embryo.

But it’s not for everyone. Holligan has experienced multiple miscarriages and wonders if a compassionate transfer might feel similar. She wonders if it might just end up “putting [her] body and mind through unnecessary stress.”

Ultimately, for Holligan and many others in a similar position, the choice remains a difficult one. “These are … very desired embryos,” says Klipstein. “The purpose of going through IVF was to create embryos to make babies. And [when people] have these embryos, and they’ve completed their family plan, they’re in a place they couldn’t have imagined.”


Now read the rest of The Checkup

Read more from MIT Technology Review‘s archive

Our relationship with embryos is unique, and a bit all over the place. That’s partly because we can’t agree on their moral status. Are they more akin to people or property, or something in between? Who should get to decide their fate? While we get to the bottom of these sticky questions, millions of embryos are stuck in suspended animation—some of them indefinitely.

It is estimated that over 12 million babies have been born through IVF. The development of the Nobel Prize–winning technology behind the procedure relied on embryo research. Some worry that donating embryos for research can be onerous—and that valuable embryos are being wasted as a result.

Fertility rates around the world are dropping below the levels needed to maintain stable populations. But IVF can’t save us from a looming fertility crisis. Gender equality and family-friendly policies are much more likely to prove helpful. 

Two years ago, the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, a legal decision that protected the right to abortion. Since then, abortion bans have been enacted in multiple states. But in November of last year, some states voted to extend and protect access to abortion, and voters in Missouri supported overturning the state’s ban.

Last year, a ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court that embryos count as children ignited fears over access to fertility treatments in a state that had already banned abortion. The move could also have implications for the development of technologies like artificial uteruses and synthetic embryos, my colleague Antonio Regalado wrote at the time.

From around the web

It’s not just embryos that are frozen as part of fertility treatments. Eggs, sperm, and even ovarian and testicular tissue can be stored too. A man who had immature testicular tissue removed and frozen before undergoing chemotherapy as a child 16 years ago had the tissue reimplanted in a world first, according to the team at University Hospital Brussels that performed the procedure around a month ago. The tissue was placed into the man’s testicle and scrotum, and scientists will wait a year before testing to see if he is successfully producing sperm. (UZ Brussel)

The Danish pharmaceutical company Novo Nordisk makes half the world’s insulin. Now it is better known as the manufacturer of the semaglutide drug Ozempic. How will the sudden shift affect the production and distribution of these medicines around the world? (Wired)

The US has not done enough to prevent the spread of the H5N1 virus in dairy cattle. The response to bird flu is a national embarrassment, argues Katherine J. Wu. (The Atlantic)

Elon Musk has said that if all goes well, millions of people will have brain-computer devices created by his company Neuralink implanted within 10 years. In reality, progress is slower—so far, Musk has said that three people have received the devices. My colleague Antonio Regalado predicts what we can expect from Neuralink in 2025. (MIT Technology Review)

OpenAI has created an AI model for longevity science

When you think of AI’s contributions to science, you probably think of AlphaFold, the Google DeepMind protein-folding program that earned its creator a Nobel Prize last year.

Now OpenAI says it’s getting into the science game too—with a model for engineering proteins.

The company says it has developed a language model that dreams up proteins capable of turning regular cells into stem cells—and that it has handily beat humans at the task.

The work represents OpenAI’s first model focused on biological data and its first public claim that its models can deliver unexpected scientific results. As such, it is a step toward determining whether or not AI can make true discoveries, which some argue is a major test on the pathway to “artificial general intelligence.”

Last week, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said he was “confident” his company knows how to build an AGI, adding that “superintelligent tools could massively accelerate scientific discovery and innovation well beyond what we are capable of doing on our own.” 

The protein engineering project started a year ago when Retro Biosciences, a longevity research company based in San Francisco, approached OpenAI about working together.

That link-up did not happen by chance. Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, personally funded Retro with $180 million, as MIT Technology Review first reported in 2023.

Retro has the goal of extending the normal human lifespan by 10 years. For that, it studies what are called Yamanaka factors. Those are a set of proteins that, when added to a human skin cell, will cause it to morph into a young-seeming stem cell, a type that can produce any other tissue in the body. 

It’s a phenomenon that researchers at Retro, and at richly funded companies like Altos Labs, see as the possible starting point for rejuvenating animals, building human organs, or providing supplies of replacement cells.

But such cell “reprogramming” is not very efficient. It takes several weeks, and less than 1% of cells treated in a lab dish will complete the rejuvenation journey.

OpenAI’s new model, called GPT-4b micro, was trained to suggest ways to re-engineer the protein factors to increase their function. According to OpenAI, researchers used the model’s suggestions to change two of the Yamanaka factors to be more than 50 times as effective—at least according to some preliminary measures. 

“Just across the board, the proteins seem better than what the scientists were able to produce by themselves,” says John Hallman, an OpenAI researcher.

Hallman and OpenAI’s Aaron Jaech, as well as Rico Meinl from Retro, were the model’s lead developers.

Outside scientists won’t be able to tell if the results are real until they’re published, something the companies say they are planning. Nor is the model available for wider use—it’s still a bespoke demonstration, not an official product launch.

“This project is meant to show that we’re serious about contributing to science,” says Jaech. “But whether those capabilities will come out to the world as a separate model or whether they’ll be rolled into our mainline reasoning models—that’s still to be determined.”

The model does not work the same way as Google’s AlphaFold, which predicts what shape proteins will take. Since the Yamanaka factors are unusually floppy and unstructured proteins, OpenAI said, they called for a different approach, which its large language models were suited to.

The model was trained on examples of protein sequences from many species, as well as information on which proteins tend to interact with one another. While that’s a lot of data, it’s just a fraction of what OpenAI’s flagship chatbots were trained on, making GPT-4b an example of a “small language model” that works with a focused data set.

Once Retro scientists were given the model, they tried to steer it to suggest possible redesigns of the Yamanaka proteins. The prompting tactic used is similar to the “few-shot” method, in which a user queries a chatbot by providing a series of examples with answers, followed by an example for the bot to respond to.

Although genetic engineers have ways to direct evolution of molecules in the lab, they can usually test only so many possibilities. And even a protein of typical length can be changed in nearly infinite ways (since they’re built from hundreds of amino acids, and each acid comes in 20 possible varieties).

OpenAI’s model, however, often spits out suggestions in which a third of the amino acids in the proteins were changed.

an image of Fibroblasts on Day 1; an image of Cells reprogrammed with SOX@, KLF4, OCT4, and MYC on Day 10; and an image of cells reprogrammed with RetroSOX, RetroKLF, OCT4, and MYC on Day 10

OPENAI

“We threw this model into the lab immediately and we got real-world results,” says Retro’s CEO, Joe Betts-Lacroix. He says the model’s ideas were unusually good, leading to improvements over the original Yamanaka factors in a substantial fraction of cases.

Vadim Gladyshev, a Harvard University aging researcher who consults with Retro, says better ways of making stem cells are needed. “For us, it would be extremely useful. [Skin cells] are easy to reprogram, but other cells are not,” he says. “And to do it in a new species—it’s often extremely different, and you don’t get anything.” 

How exactly the GPT-4b arrives at its guesses is still not clear—as is often the case with AI models. “It’s like when AlphaGo crushed the best human at Go, but it took a long time to find out why,” says Betts-Lacroix. “We are still figuring out what it does, and we think the way we apply this is only scratching the surface.”

OpenAI says no money changed hands in the collaboration. But because the work could benefit Retro—whose biggest investor is Altman—the announcement may add to questions swirling around the OpenAI CEO’s side projects.

Last year, the Wall Street Journal said Altman’s wide-ranging investments in private tech startups amount to an “opaque investment empire” that is “creating a mounting list of potential conflicts,” since some of these companies also do business with OpenAI.

In Retro’s case, simply being associated with Altman, OpenAI, and the race toward AGI could boost its profile and increase its ability to hire staff and raise funds. Betts-Lacroix did not answer questions about whether the early-stage company is currently in fundraising mode. 

OpenAI says Altman was not directly involved in the work and that it never makes decisions based on Altman’s other investments. 

Inside the strange limbo facing millions of IVF embryos

Lisa Holligan already had two children when she decided to try for another baby. Her first two pregnancies had come easily. But for some unknown reason, the third didn’t. Holligan and her husband experienced miscarriage after miscarriage after miscarriage.

Like many other people struggling to conceive, Holligan turned to in vitro fertilization, or IVF. The technology allows embryologists to take sperm and eggs and fuse them outside the body, creating embryos that can then be transferred into a person’s uterus.

The fertility clinic treating Holligan was able to create six embryos using her eggs and her husband’s sperm. Genetic tests revealed that only three of these were “genetically normal.” After the first was transferred, Holligan got pregnant. Then she experienced yet another miscarriage. “I felt numb,” she recalls. But the second transfer, which took place several months later, stuck. And little Quinn, who turns four in February, was the eventual happy result. “She is the light in our lives,” says Holligan.

Holligan, who lives in the UK, opted to donate her “genetically abnormal” embryos for scientific research. But she still has one healthy embryo frozen in storage. And she doesn’t know what to do with it.

Should she and her husband donate it to another family? Destroy it? “It’s almost four years down the line, and we still haven’t done anything with [the embryo],” she says. The clinic hasn’t been helpful—Holligan doesn’t remember talking about what to do with leftover embryos at the time, and no one there has been in touch with her for years, she says.

Holligan’s embryo is far from the only one in this peculiar limbo. Millions—or potentially tens of millions—of embryos created through IVF sit frozen in time, stored in cryopreservation tanks around the world. The number is only growing thanks to advances in technology, the rising popularity of IVF, and improvements in its success rates. 

At a basic level, an embryo is simply a tiny ball of a hundred or so cells. But unlike other types of body tissue, it holds the potential for life. Many argue that this endows embryos with a special moral status, one that requires special protections. The problem is that no one can really agree on what that status is. To some, they’re human cells and nothing else. To others, they’re morally equivalent to children. Many feel they exist somewhere between those two extremes.

There are debates, too, over how we should classify embryos in law. Are they property? Do they have a legal status? These questions are important: There have been multiple legal disputes over who gets to use embryos, who is responsible if they are damaged, and who gets the final say over their fate. And the answers will depend not only on scientific factors, but also on ethical, cultural, and religious ones.  

The options currently available to people with leftover IVF embryos mirror this confusion. As a UK resident, Holligan can choose to discard her embryos, make them available to other prospective parents, or donate them for research. People in the US can also opt for “adoption,” “placing” their embryos with families they get to choose. In Germany, people are not typically allowed to freeze embryos at all. And in Italy, embryos that are not used by the intended parents cannot be discarded or donated. They must remain frozen, ostensibly forever. 

While these embryos persist in suspended animation, patients, clinicians, embryologists, and legislators must grapple with the essential question of what we should do with them. What do these embryos mean to us? Who should be responsible for them? 

Meanwhile, many of these same people are trying to find ways to bring down the total number of embryos in storage. Maintenance costs are high. Some clinics are running out of space. And with a greater number of embryos in storage, there are more opportunities for human error. They are grappling with how to get a handle on the growing number of embryos stuck in storage with nowhere to go.

The embryo boom

There are a few reasons why this has become such a conundrum. And they largely come down to an increasing demand for IVF and improvements in the way it is practiced. “It’s a problem of our own creation,” says Pietro Bortoletto, a reproductive endocrinologist at Boston IVF in Massachusetts. IVF has only become as successful as it is today by “generating lots of excess eggs and embryos along the way,” he says. 

To have the best chance of creating healthy embryos that will attach to the uterus and grow in a successful pregnancy, clinics will try to collect multiple eggs. People who undergo IVF will typically take a course of hormone injections to stimulate their ovaries. Instead of releasing a single egg that month, they can expect to produce somewhere between seven and 20 eggs. These eggs can be collected via a needle that passes through the vagina and into the ovaries. The eggs are then taken to a lab, where they are introduced to sperm. Around 70% to 80% of IVF eggs are successfully fertilized to create embryos.

The embryos are then grown in the lab. After around five to seven days an embryo reaches a stage of development at which it is called a blastocyst, and it is ready to be transferred to a uterus. Not all IVF embryos reach this stage, however—only around 30% to 50% of them make it to day five. This process might leave a person with no viable embryos. It could also result in more than 10, only one of which is typically transferred in each pregnancy attempt. In a typical IVF cycle, one embryo might be transferred to the person’s uterus “fresh,” while any others that were created are frozen and stored.

IVF success rates have increased over time, in large part thanks to improvements in this storage technology. A little over a decade ago, embryologists tended to use a “slow freeze” technique, says Bortoletto, and many embryos didn’t survive the process. Embryos are now vitrified instead, using liquid nitrogen to rapidly cool them from room temperature to -196 °C in less than two seconds. Vitrification essentially turns all the water in the embryos into a glasslike state, avoiding the formation of damaging ice crystals. 

Now, clinics increasingly take a “freeze all” approach, in which they cryopreserve all the viable embryos and don’t start transferring them until later. In some cases, this is so that the clinic has a chance to perform genetic tests on the embryo they plan to transfer.

An assortment of sperm and embryos, preserved in liquid nitrogen.
ALAMY

Once a lab-grown embryo is around seven days old, embryologists can remove a few cells for preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), which screens for genetic factors that might make healthy development less likely or predispose any resulting children to genetic diseases. PGT is increasingly popular in the US—in 2014, it was used in 13% of IVF cycles, but by 2016, that figure had increased to 27%. Embryos that undergo PGT have to be frozen while the tests are run, which typically takes a week or two, says Bortoletto: “You can’t continue to grow them until you get those results back.”

And there doesn’t seem to be a limit to how long an embryo can stay in storage. In 2022, a couple in Oregon had twins who developed from embryos that had been frozen for 30 years.

Put this all together, and it’s easy to see how the number of embryos in storage is rocketing. We’re making and storing more embryos than ever before. When you combine that with the growing demand for IVF, which is increasing in use by the year, perhaps it’s not surprising that the number of embryos sitting in storage tanks is estimated to be in the millions.

I say estimated, because no one really knows how many there are. In 2003, the results of a survey of fertility clinics in the US suggested that there were around 400,000 in storage. Ten years later, in 2013, another pair of researchers estimated that, in total, around 1.4 million embryos had been cryopreserved in the US. But Alana Cattapan, now a political scientist at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada, and her colleagues found flaws in the study and wrote in 2015 that the number could be closer to 4 million.  

That was a decade ago. When I asked embryologists what they thought the number might be in the US today, I got responses between 1 million and 10 million. Bortoletto puts it somewhere around 5 million.

Globally, the figure is much higher. There could be tens of millions of embryos, invisible to the naked eye, kept in a form of suspended animation. Some for months, years, or decades. Others indefinitely.

Stuck in limbo

In theory, people who have embryos left over from IVF have a few options for what to do with them. They could donate the embryos for someone else to use. Often this can be done anonymously (although genetic tests might later reveal the biological parents of any children that result). They could also donate the embryos for research purposes. Or they could choose to discard them. One way to do this is to expose the embryos to air, causing the cells to die.

Studies suggest that around 40% of people with cryopreserved embryos struggle to make this decision, and that many put it off for five years or more. For some people, none of the options are appealing.

In practice, too, the available options vary greatly depending on where you are. And many of them lead to limbo.

Take Spain, for example, which is a European fertility hub, partly because IVF there is a lot cheaper than in other Western European countries, says Giuliana Baccino, managing director of New Life Bank, a storage facility for eggs and sperm in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and vice chair of the European Fertility Society. Operating costs are low, and there’s healthy competition—there are around 330 IVF clinics operating in Spain. (For comparison, there are around 500 IVF clinics in the US, which has a population almost seven times greater.)

Baccino, who is based in Madrid, says she often hears of foreign patients in their late 40s who create eight or nine embryos for IVF in Spain but end up using only one or two of them. They go back to their home countries to have their babies, and the embryos stay in Spain, she says. These individuals often don’t come back for their remaining embryos, either because they have completed their families or because they age out of IVF eligibility (Spanish clinics tend not to offer the treatment to people over 50). 

Doctors hands removing embryo samples from cryogenic storage
An embryo sample is removed from cryogenic storage.
GETTY IMAGES

In 2023, the Spanish Fertility Society estimated that there were 668,082 embryos in storage in Spain, and that around 60,000 of them were “in a situation of abandonment.” In these cases the clinics might not be able to reach the intended parents, or might not have a clear directive from them, and might not want to destroy any embryos in case the patients ask for them later. But Spanish clinics are wary of discarding embryos even when they have permission to do so, says Baccino. “We always try to avoid trouble,” she says. “And we end up with embryos in this black hole.”

This happens to embryos in the US, too. Clinics can lose touch with their patients, who may move away or forget about their remaining embryos once they have completed their families. Other people may put off making decisions about those embryos and stop communicating with the clinic. In cases like these, clinics tend to hold onto the embryos, covering the storage fees themselves.

Nowadays clinics ask their patients to sign contracts that cover long-term storage of embryos—and the conditions of their disposal. But even with those in hand, it can be easier for clinics to leave the embryos in place indefinitely. “Clinics are wary of disposing of them without explicit consent, because of potential liability,” says Cattapan, who has researched the issue. “People put so much time, energy, money into creating these embryos. What if they come back?”

Bortoletto’s clinic has been in business for 35 years, and the handful of sites it operates in the US have a total of over 47,000 embryos in storage, he says. “Our oldest embryo in storage was frozen in 1989,” he adds. 

Some people may not even know where their embryos are. Sam Everingham, who founded and directs Growing Families, an organization offering advice on surrogacy and cross-border donations, traveled with his partner from their home in Melbourne, Australia, to India to find an egg donor and surrogate back in 2009. “It was a Wild West back then,” he recalls. Everingham and his partner used donor eggs to create eight embryos with their sperm.

Everingham found the experience of trying to bring those embryos to birth traumatic. Baby Zac was stillborn. Baby Ben died at seven weeks. “We picked ourselves up and went again,” he recalls. Two embryo transfers were successful, and the pair have two daughters today.

But the fate of the rest of their embryos is unclear. India’s government decided to ban commercial surrogacy for foreigners in 2015, and Everingham lost track of where they are. He says he’s okay with that. As far as he’s concerned, those embryos are just cells.

He knows not everyone feels the same way. A few days before we spoke, Everingham had hosted a couple for dinner. They had embryos in storage and couldn’t agree on what to do with them. “The mother … wanted them donated to somebody,” says Everingham. Her husband was very uncomfortable with the idea. “[They have] paid storage fees for 14 years for those embryos because neither can agree on what to do with them,” says Everingham. “And this is a very typical scenario.”

Lisa Holligan’s experience is similar. Holligan thought she’d like to donate her last embryo to another person—someone else who might have been struggling to conceive. “But my husband and I had very different views on it,” she recalls. He saw the embryo as their child and said he wouldn’t feel comfortable with giving it up to another family. “I started having these thoughts about a child coming to me when they’re older, saying they’ve had a terrible life, and [asking] ‘Why didn’t you have me?’” she says.

After all, her daughter Quinn began as an embryo that was in storage for months. “She was frozen in time. She could have been frozen for five years like [the leftover] embryo and still be her,” she says. “I know it sounds a bit strange, but this embryo could be a child in 20 years’ time. The science is just mind-blowing, and I think I just block it out. It’s far too much to think about.”

No choice at all

Choosing the fate of your embryos can be difficult. But some people have no options at all.

This is the case in Italy, where the laws surrounding assisted reproductive technology have grown increasingly restrictive. Since 2004, IVF has been accessible only to heterosexual couples who are either married or cohabiting. Surrogacy has also been prohibited in the country for the last 20 years, and in 2024, it was made a “universal crime.” The move means Italians can be prosecuted for engaging in surrogacy anywhere in the world, a position Italy has also taken on the crimes of genocide and torture, says Sara Dalla Costa, a lawyer specializing in assisted reproduction and an IVF clinic manager at Instituto Bernabeu on the outskirts of Venice.

The law surrounding leftover embryos is similarly inflexible. Dalla Costa says there are around 900,000 embryos in storage in Italy, basing the estimate on figures published in 2021 and the number of IVF cycles performed since then. By law, these embryos cannot be discarded. They cannot be donated to other people, and they cannot be used for research. 

Even when genetic tests show that the embryo has genetic features making it “incompatible with life,” it must remain in storage, forever, says Dalla Costa. 

“There are a lot of patients that want to destroy embryos,” she says. For that, they must transfer their embryos to Spain or other countries where it is allowed.

Even people who want to use their embryos may “age out” of using them. Dalla Costa gives the example of a 48-year-old woman who undergoes IVF and creates five embryos. If the first embryo transfer happens to result in a successful pregnancy, the other four will end up in storage. Once she turns 50, this woman won’t be eligible for IVF in Italy. Her remaining embryos become stuck in limbo. “They will be stored in our biobanks forever,” says Dalla Costa.

Dalla Costa says she has “a lot of examples” of couples who separate after creating embryos together. For many of them, the stored embryos become a psychological burden. With no way of discarding them, these couples are forever connected through their cryopreserved cells. “A lot of our patients are stressed for this reason,” she says.

Earlier this year, one of Dalla Costa’s clients passed away, leaving behind the embryos she’d created with her husband. He asked the clinic to destroy them. In cases like these, Dalla Costa will contact the Italian Ministry of Health. She has never been granted permission to discard an embryo, but she hopes that highlighting cases like these might at least raise awareness about the dilemmas the country’s policies are creating for some people.

Snowflakes and embabies

In Italy, embryos have a legal status. They have protected rights and are viewed almost as children. This sentiment isn’t specific to Italy. It is shared by plenty of individuals who have been through IVF. “Some people call them ‘embabies’ or ‘freezer babies,’” says Cattapan.

It is also shared by embryo adoption agencies in the US. Beth Button is executive director of one such program, called Snowflakes—a division of Nightlight Christian Adoptions agency, which considers cryopreserved embryos to be children, frozen in time, waiting to be born. Snowflakes matches embryo donors, or “placing families,” with recipients, termed “adopting families.” Both parties share their information and essentially get to choose who they donate to or receive from. By the end of 2024, 1,316 babies had been born through the Snowflakes embryo adoption program, says Button. 

Button thinks that far too many embryos are being created in IVF labs around the US. Around 10 years ago, her agency received a donation from a couple that had around 38 leftover embryos to donate. “We really encourage [people with leftover embryos in storage] to make a decision [about their fate], even though it’s an emotional, difficult decision,” she says. “Obviously, we just try to keep [that discussion] focused on the child,” she says. “Is it better for these children to be sitting in a freezer, even though that might be easier for you, or is it better for them to have a chance to be born into a loving family? That kind of pushes them to the point where they’re ready to make that decision.”

Button and her colleagues feel especially strongly about embryos that have been in storage for a long time. These embryos are usually difficult to place, because they are thought to be of poorer quality, or less likely to successfully thaw and result in a healthy birth. The agency runs a program called Open Hearts specifically to place them, along with others that are harder to match for various reasons. People who accept one but fail to conceive are given a shot with another embryo, free of charge.

These nitrogen tanks at New Hope Fertility Center in New York hold tens of thousands of frozen embryos and eggs.
GETTY IMAGES

“We have seen perfectly healthy children born from very old embryos, [as well as] embryos that were considered such poor quality that doctors didn’t even want to transfer them,” says Button. “Right now, we have a couple who is pregnant with [an embryo] that was frozen for 30 and a half years. If that pregnancy is successful, that will be a record for us, and I think it will be a worldwide record as well.”

Many embryologists bristle at the idea of calling an embryo a child, though. “Embryos are property. They are not unborn children,” says Bortoletto. In the best case, embryos create pregnancies around 65% of the time, he says. “They are not unborn children,” he repeats.

Person or property?

In 2020, an unauthorized person allegedly entered an IVF clinic in Alabama and pulled frozen embryos from storage, destroying them. Three sets of intended parents filed suit over their “wrongful death.” A trial court dismissed the claims, but the Alabama Supreme Court disagreed, essentially determining that those embryos were people. The ruling shocked many and was expected to have a chilling effect on IVF in the state, although within a few weeks, the state legislature granted criminal and civil immunity to IVF clinics.

But the Alabama decision is the exception. While there are active efforts in some states to endow embryos with the same legal rights as people, a move that could potentially limit access to abortion, “most of the [legal] rulings in this area have made it very clear that embryos are not people,” says Rich Vaughn, an attorney specializing in fertility law and the founder of the US-based International Fertility Law Group. At the same time, embryos are not just property. “They’re something in between,” says Vaughn. “They’re sort of a special type of property.” 

UK law takes a similar approach: The language surrounding embryos and IVF was drafted with the idea that the embryo has some kind of “special status,” although it was never made entirely clear exactly what that special status is, says James Lawford Davies, a solicitor and partner at LDMH Partners, a law firm based in York, England, that specializes in life sciences. Over the years, the language has been tweaked to encompass embryos that might arise from IVF, cloning, or other means; it is “a bit of a fudge,” says Lawford Davies. Today, the official—if somewhat circular—legal definition in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act reads: “embryo means a live human embryo.” 

And while people who use their eggs or sperm to create embryos might view these embryos as theirs, according to UK law, embryos are more like “a stateless bundle of cells,” says Lawford Davies. They’re not quite property—people don’t own embryos. They just have control over how they are used. 

Many legal disputes revolve around who has control. This was the experience of Natallie Evans, who created embryos with her then partner Howard Johnston in the UK in 2001. The couple separated in 2002. Johnston wrote to the clinic to ask that their embryos be destroyed. But Evans, who had been diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2001, wanted to use them. She argued that Johnston had already consented to their creation, storage, and use and should not be allowed to change his mind. The case eventually made it to the European Court of Human Rights, and Evans lost. The case set a precedent that consent was key and could be withdrawn at any time.

In Italy, on the other hand, withdrawing consent isn’t always possible. In 2021, a case like Natallie Evans’s unfolded in the Italian courts: A woman who wanted to proceed with implantation after separating from her partner went to court for authorization. “She said that it was her last chance to be a mother,” says Dalla Costa. The judge ruled in her favor.

Dalla Costa’s clinics in Italy are now changing their policies to align with this decision. Male partners must sign a form acknowledging that they cannot prevent embryos from being used once they’ve been created.

The US situation is even more complicated, because each state has its own approach to fertility regulation. When I looked through a series of published legal disputes over embryos, I found little consistency—sometimes courts ruled to allow a woman to use an embryo without the consent of her former partner, and sometimes they didn’t. “Some states have comprehensive … legislation; some do not,” says Vaughn. “Some have piecemeal legislation, some have only case law, some have all of the above, some have none of the above.”

The meaning of an embryo

So how should we define an embryo? “It’s the million-dollar question,” says Heidi Mertes, a bioethicist at Ghent University in Belgium. Some bioethicists and legal scholars, including Vaughn, think we’d all stand to benefit from clear legal definitions. 

Risa Cromer, a cultural anthropologist at Purdue University in Indiana, who has spent years researching the field, is less convinced. Embryos exist in a murky, in-between state, she argues. You can (usually) discard them, or transfer them, but you can’t sell them. You can make claims against damages to them, but an embryo is never viewed in the same way as a car, for example. “It doesn’t fit really neatly into that property category,” says Cromer. “But, very clearly, it doesn’t fit neatly into the personhood category either.”

And there are benefits to keeping the definition vague, she adds: “There is, I think, a human need for there to be a wide range of interpretive space for what IVF embryos are or could be.”

That’s because we don’t have a fixed moral definition of what an embryo is. Embryos hold special value even for people who don’t view them as children. They hold potential as human life. They can come to represent a fertility journey—one that might have been expensive, exhausting, and traumatizing.  “Even for people who feel like they’re just cells, it still cost a lot of time, money, [and effort] to get those [cells],” says Cattapan.

“I think it’s an illusion that we might all agree on what the moral status of an embryo is,” Mertes says.

In the meantime, a growing number of embryologists, ethicists, and researchers are working to persuade fertility clinics and their patients not to create or freeze so many embryos in the first place. Early signs aren’t promising, says Baccino. The patients she has encountered aren’t particularly receptive to the idea. “They think, ‘If I will pay this amount for a cycle, I want to optimize my chances, so in my case, no,’” she says. She expects the number of embryos in storage to continue to grow.

Holligan’s embryo has been in storage for almost five years. And she still doesn’t know what to do with it. She tears up as she talks through her options. Would discarding the embryo feel like a miscarriage? Would it be a sad thing? If she donated the embryo, would she spend the rest of her life wondering what had become of her biological child, and whether it was having a good life? Should she hold on to the embryo for another decade in case her own daughter needs to use it at some point?

“The question [of what to do with the embryo] does pop into my head, but I quickly try to move past it and just say ‘Oh, that’s something I’ll deal with at a later time,’” says Holligan. “I’m sure [my husband] does the same.”

The accumulation of frozen embryos is “going to continue this way for some time until we come up with something that fully addresses everyone’s concerns,” says Vaughn. But will we ever be able to do that?

“I’m an optimist, so I’m gonna say yes,” he says with a hopeful smile. “But I don’t know at the moment.”

How the US is preparing for a potential bird flu pandemic

This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here.

This week marks a strange anniversary—it’s five years since most of us first heard about a virus causing a mysterious “pneumonia.” A virus that we later learned could cause a disease called covid-19. A virus that swept the globe and has since been reported to have been responsible for over 7 million deaths—and counting.

I first covered the virus in an article published on January 7, 2020, which had the headline “Doctors scramble to identify mysterious illness emerging in China.” For that article, and many others that followed it, I spoke to people who were experts on viruses, infectious disease, and epidemiology. Frequently, their answers to my questions about the virus, how it might spread, and the risks of a pandemic were the same: “We don’t know.”

We are facing the same uncertainty now with H5N1, the virus commonly known as bird flu. This virus has been decimating bird populations for years, and now a variant is rapidly spreading among dairy cattle in the US. We know it can cause severe disease in animals, and we know it can pass from animals to people who are in close contact with them. As of this Monday this week, we also know that it can cause severe disease in people—a 65-year-old man in Louisiana became the first person in the US to die from an H5N1 infection.

Scientists are increasingly concerned about a potential bird flu pandemic. The question is, given all the enduring uncertainty around the virus, what should we be doing now to prepare for the possibility? Can stockpiled vaccines save us? And, importantly, have we learned any lessons from a covid pandemic that still hasn’t entirely fizzled out?

Part of the challenge here is that it is impossible to predict how H5N1 will evolve.

A variant of the virus caused disease in people in 1997, when there was a small but deadly outbreak in Hong Kong. Eighteen people had confirmed diagnoses, and six of them died. Since then, there have been sporadic cases around the world—but no large outbreaks.

As far as H5N1 is concerned, we’ve been relatively lucky, says Ali Khan, dean of the college of public health at the University of Nebraska. “Influenza presents the greatest infectious-disease pandemic threat to humans, period,” says Khan. The 1918 flu pandemic was caused by a type of influenza virus called H1N1 that appears to have jumped from birds to people. It is thought to have infected a third of the world’s population, and to have been responsible for around 50 million deaths.

Another H1N1 virus was responsible for the 2009 “swine flu” pandemic. That virus hit younger people hardest, as they were less likely to have been exposed to similar variants and thus had much less immunity. It was responsible for somewhere between 151,700 and 575,400 deaths that year.

To cause a pandemic, the H5N1 variants currently circulating in birds and dairy cattle in the US would need to undergo genetic changes that allow them to spread more easily from animals to people, spread more easily between people, and become more deadly in people. Unfortunately, we know from experience that viruses need only a few such changes to become more easily transmissible.

And with each and every infection, the risk that a virus will acquire these dangerous genetic changes increases. Once a virus infects a host, it can evolve and swap chunks of genetic code with any other viruses that might also be infecting that host, whether it’s a bird, a pig, a cow, or a person. “It’s a big gambling game,” says Marion Koopmans, a virologist at the Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. “And the gambling is going on at too large a scale for comfort.”

There are ways to improve our odds. For the best chance at preventing another pandemic, we need to get a handle on, and limit, the spread of the virus. Here, the US could have done a better job at limiting the spread in dairy cows, says Khan. “It should have been found a lot earlier,” he says. “There should have been more aggressive measures to prevent transmission, to recognize what disease looks like within our communities, and to protect workers.”

States could also have done better at testing farm workers for infection, says Koopmans. “I’m surprised that I haven’t heard of an effort to eradicate it from cattle,” she adds. “A country like the US should be able to do that.”

The good news is that there are already systems in place for tracking the general spread of flu in people. The World Health Organization’s Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System collects and analyzes samples of viruses collected from countries around the world. It allows the organization to make recommendations about seasonal flu vaccines and also helps scientists track the spread of various flu variants. That’s something we didn’t have for the covid-19 virus when it first took off.

We are also better placed to make vaccines. Some countries, including the US, are already stockpiling vaccines that should be at least somewhat effective against H5N1 (although it is difficult to predict exactly how effective they will be against some future variant). The US Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response plans to have “up to 10 million doses of prefilled syringes and multidose vials” prepared by the end of March, according to an email from a representative.

The US Department of Health and Human Services has also said it will provide the pharmaceutical company Moderna with $176 million to create mRNA vaccines for pandemic influenza—using the same quick-turnaround vaccine production technology used in the company’s covid-19 vaccines.

Some question whether these vaccines should have already been offered to dairy farm workers in affected parts of the US. Many of these individuals have been exposed to the virus, a good chunk of them appear to have been infected with it, and some of them have become ill. If the decision had been up to Khan, he says, they would have been offered the H5N1 vaccine by now. And we should ensure they are offered seasonal flu vaccines in order to limit the risk that the two flu viruses will mingle inside one person, he adds.

Others worry that 10 million vaccine doses aren’t enough for a country with a population of around 341 million. But health agencies “walk a razor-thin line between having too much vaccine for something and not having enough,” says Khan. If an outbreak never transpires, 340 million doses of vaccine will feel like an enormous waste of resources.

We can’t predict how well these viruses will work, either. Flu viruses mutate all the time, and even seasonal flu vaccines are notoriously unpredictable in their efficacy. “I think we’ve become a little bit spoiled with the covid vaccines,” says Koopmans. “We were really, really lucky [to develop] vaccines with high efficacy.”

One vaccine lesson we should have learned from the covid-19 pandemic is the importance of equitable access to vaccines around the world. Unfortunately, it’s unlikely that we have. “It is doubtful that low-income countries will have early access to [a pandemic influenza] vaccine unless the world takes action,” Nicole Lurie of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) said in a recent interview for Gavi, a public-private alliance for vaccine equity.

And another is the impact of vaccine hesitancy. Making vaccines might not be a problem—but convincing people to take them might be, says Khan. “We have an incoming administration that has lots of vaccine hesitancy,” he points out. “So while we may end up having … vaccines available, it’s not very clear to me if we have the political and social will to actually implement good public health measures.”

This is another outcome that is impossible to predict, and I won’t attempt to do so. But I am hoping that the relevant administrations will step up our defenses. And that this will be enough to prevent another devastating pandemic.


Now read the rest of The Checkup

Read more from MIT Technology Review‘s archive

Bird flu has been circulating in US dairy cows for months. Virologists are worried it could stick around on US farms forever.

As the virus continues to spread, the risk of a pandemic continues to rise. We still don’t really know how the virus is spreading, but we do know that it is turning up in raw milk. (Please don’t drink raw milk.)

mRNA vaccines helped us through the covid-19 pandemic. Now scientists are working on mRNA flu vaccines—including “universal” vaccines that could protect against multiple flu viruses.

The next generation of mRNA vaccines is on the way. These vaccines are “self-amplifying” and essentially tell the body how to make more mRNA. 

Maybe there’s an alternative to dairy farms of the type that are seeing H5N1 in their cattle. Scientists are engineering yeasts and plants with bovine genes so they can produce proteins normally found in milk, which can be used to make spreadable cheeses and ice cream. The cofounder of one company says a factory of bubbling yeast vats could “replace 50,000 to 100,000 cows.”

From around the web

My colleagues and I put together an annual list of what we think are the breakthrough technologies of that year. This year’s list includes long-acting HIV prevention medicines and stem-cell treatments that actually work. Check out the full list here.

Calico, the Google biotech company focused on “tackling aging,” has released results from the trial of a drug to treat amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). The drug failed. (STAT) 

Around the world, birth rates are falling. The more concerned nations become about this fact, the greater the risk to gender rights, writes Angela Saini. (Wired)

Brooke Eby, a 36-year-old with ALS, is among a niche group of content creators documenting their journeys with terminal illness on social media platforms like TikTok. “I’m glad that I’m sharing my journey. I wish someone had come before me and shared, start to finish …,” she said. “I’m just going to post all this, because maybe it’ll help someone who’s like a year behind me in their progression.” (New York Times)

Do we each have 30 trillion genomes? A growing understanding of genetic mutations that occur in adults is changing the way doctors diagnose and treat disease. (The Atlantic)

Long-acting HIV prevention meds: 10 Breakthrough Technologies 2025

WHO

Gilead Sciences, GSK, ViiV Healthcare

WHEN

1 to 3 years

In June 2024, results from a trial of a new medicine to prevent HIV were announced—and they were jaw-dropping. Lenacapavir, a treatment injected once every six months, protected over 5,000 girls and women in Uganda and South Africa from getting HIV. And it was 100% effective.

The drug, which is produced by Gilead, has other advantages. We’ve had effective pre-exposure prophylactic (PrEP) drugs for HIV since 2012, but these must be taken either daily or in advance of each time a person is exposed to the virus. That’s a big ask for healthy people. And because these medicines also treat infections, there’s stigma attached to taking them. For some, the drugs are expensive or hard to access. In the lenacapavir trial, researchers found that injections of the new drug were more effective than a daily PrEP pill, probably because participants didn’t manage to take the pills every day.

 In 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration approved another long-acting injectable drug that protects against HIV. That drug, cabotegravir, is manufactured by ViiV Healthcare (which is largely owned by GSK) and needs to be injected every two months. But despite huge demand, rollout has been slow.   

Explore the full 2025 list of 10 Breakthrough Technologies.

Scientists and activists hope that the story will be different for lenacapavir. So far, the FDA has approved the drug only for people who already have HIV that’s resistant to other treatments. But Gilead has signed licensing agreements with manufacturers to produce generic versions for HIV prevention in 120 low-income countries. 

In October, Gilead announced more trial results for lenacapavir, finding it 96% effective at preventing HIV infection in just over 3,200 cisgender gay, bisexual, and other men, as well as transgender men, transgender women, and nonbinary people who have sex with people assigned male at birth. 

The United Nations has set a goal of ending AIDS by 2030. It’s ambitious, to say the least: We still see over 1 million new HIV infections globally every year. But we now have the medicines to get us there. What we need is access. 

Stem-cell therapies that work: 10 Breakthrough Technologies 2025

WHO

California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Neurona Therapeutics, Vertex Pharmaceuticals

WHEN

5 years

A quarter-century ago, researchers isolated powerful stem cells from embryos created through in vitro fertilization. These cells, theoretically able to morph into any tissue in the human body, promised a medical revolution. Think: replacement parts for whatever ails you. 

But stem-cell science didn’t go smoothly. Not at first. Even though scientists soon learned to create these make-anything cells without embryos, coaxing them to become truly functional adult tissue proved harder than anyone guessed.

Now, though, stem cells are finally on the brink of delivering. Take the case of Justin Graves, a man with debilitating epilepsy who received a transplant of lab-made neurons, engineered to quell the electrical misfires in his brain that cause epileptic attacks.

Since the procedure, carried out in 2023 at the University of California, San Diego, Graves has reported having seizures about once a week, rather than once per day as he used to. “It’s just been an incredible, complete change,” he says. “I am pretty much a stem-cell evangelist now.”

The epilepsy trial, from a company called Neurona Therapeutics, is at an early stage—only 15 patients have been treated. But the preliminary results are remarkable.

Last June, a different stem-cell study delivered dramatic results. This time it was in type 1 diabetes, the autoimmune condition formerly called juvenile diabetes, in which a person’s body attacks the beta islet cells in the pancreas. Without working beta cells to control their blood sugar levels, people with type 1 diabetes rely on daily blood glucose monitoring and insulin injections or infusions to stay alive.

Explore the full 2025 list of 10 Breakthrough Technologies.

In this ongoing study, carried out by Vertex Pharmaceuticals in Boston, some patients who got transfusions of lab-made beta cells have been able to stop taking insulin. Instead, their new cells make it when it’s needed. 

No more seizures. No more insulin injections. Those are the words patients have always wanted to hear. And it means stem-cell researchers are close to achieving functional cures—when patients can get on with life because their bodies are able to self-regulate. 

Why childhood vaccines are a public health success story

This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here.

Later today, around 10 minutes after this email lands in your inbox, I’ll be holding my four-year-old daughter tight as she receives her booster dose of the MMR vaccine. This shot should protect her from a trio of nasty infections—infections that can lead to meningitis, blindness, and hearing loss. I feel lucky to be offered it.

This year marks the 50-year anniversary of an ambitious global childhood vaccination program. The Expanded Programme on Immunization was launched by the World Health Organization in 1974 with the goal of getting lifesaving vaccines to all the children on the planet.

Vaccines are estimated to have averted 154 million deaths since the launch of the EPI. That number includes 146 million children under the age of five. Vaccination efforts are estimated to have reduced infant mortality by 40%, and to have contributed an extra 10 billion years of healthy life among the global population.

Childhood vaccination is a success story. But concerns around vaccines endure. Especially, it seems, among the individuals Donald Trump has picked as his choices to lead US health agencies from January. This week, let’s take a look at their claims, and where the evidence really stands on childhood vaccines.

WHO, along with health agencies around the world, recommends a suite of vaccinations for babies and young children. Some, such as the BCG vaccine, which offers some protection against tuberculosis, are recommended from birth. Others, like the vaccines for pertussis, diphtheria, tetanus, and whooping cough, which are often administered in a single shot, are introduced at eight weeks. Other vaccinations and booster doses follow.

The idea is to protect babies as soon as possible, says Kaja Abbas of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine in the UK and Nagasaki University in Japan.

The full vaccine schedule will depend on what infections pose the greatest risks and will vary by country. In the US, the recommended schedule is determined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and individual states can opt to set vaccine mandates or allow various exemptions.

Some scientists are concerned about how these rules might change in January, when Donald Trump makes his return to the White House. Trump has already listed his picks for top government officials, including those meant to lead the country’s health agencies. These individuals must be confirmed by the Senate before they can assume these roles, but it appears that Trump intends to surround himself with vaccine skeptics.

For starters, Trump has selected Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as his pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. Kennedy, who has long been a prominent anti-vaxxer, has a track record of spreading false information about vaccines.

In 2005, he published an error-laden article in Salon and Rolling Stone linking thimerosal—an antifungal preservative that was previously used in vaccines but phased out in the US by 2001—to neurological disorders in children. (That article was eventually deleted in 2011. “I regret we didn’t move on this more quickly, as evidence continued to emerge debunking the vaccines and autism link,” wrote Joan Walsh, Salon’s editor at large at the time.)

Kennedy hasn’t let up since. In 2015, he made outrageous comments about childhood vaccinations at a screening of a film that linked thimerosal to autism. “They get the shot, that night they have a fever of a hundred and three, they go to sleep, and three months later their brain is gone,” Kennedy said, as reported by the Sacramento Bee. “This is a holocaust, what this is doing to our country.”

Aaron Siri, the lawyer who has been helping Kennedy pick health officials for the upcoming Trump administration, has petitioned the government to pause the distribution of multiple vaccines and to revoke approval of the polio vaccine entirely. And Dave Weldon, Trump’s pick to direct the CDC, also has a history of vaccine skepticism. He has championed the disproven link between thimerosal and autism.

These arguments aren’t new. The MMR vaccine in particular has been subject to debate, controversy, and conspiracy theories for decades. All the way back in 1998, a British doctor, Andrew Wakefield, published a paper suggesting a link between the vaccine and autism in children.

The study has since been debunked—multiple times over—and Wakefield was found to have unethically subjected children to invasive and unnecessary procedures. The paper was retracted 12 years after it was published, and the UK’s General Medical Council found Wakefield guilty of serious professional misconduct. He was struck off the medical register and is no longer allowed to practice medicine in the UK. (He continues to peddle false information, though, and directed the 2016 film Vaxxed, which Weldon appeared in.)

So it’s remarkable that his “study” still seems to be affecting public opinion. A recent Pew Research Center survey suggests that four in 10 US adults worry that “not all vaccines are necessary,” and while most Americans think the benefits outweigh any risks, some are still concerned about side effects. Views among Republicans in particular seem to have shifted over the years. In 2019, 82% supported school-based vaccine requirements. That figure dropped to 70% in 2023.

The problem is that we need more than 70% of children to be vaccinated to reach “herd immunity”—the level needed to protect communities. For a super-contagious infection like measles, 95% of the population needs to be vaccinated, according to WHO. “If [coverage drops to] 80%, we should expect outbreaks,” says Abbas.

And that’s exactly what is happening. In 2023, only 83% of children got their first dose of a measles vaccine through routine health services. Nearly 35 million children are thought to have either partial protection from the disease or none at all. And over the last five years, there have been measles outbreaks in 103 countries.

Polio vaccines—the ones whose approval Siri sought to revoke—have also played a vital role in protecting children, in this case from a devastating infection that can cause paralysis. “People were so afraid of polio in the ‘30s, ‘40s, and ‘50s here in the United States,” says William Moss, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland. “When the trial results of [the first] vaccine were announced in the United States, people were dancing in the streets.”

That vaccine was licensed in the US in 1955. By 1994, polio was considered eliminated in North and South America. Today, wild forms of the virus have been eradicated in all but two countries.

But the polio vaccine story is not straightforward. There are two types of polio vaccine: an injected type that includes a “dead” form of the virus, and an oral version that includes “live” virus. This virus can be shed in feces, and in places with poor sanitation, it can spread. It can also undergo genetic changes to create a form of the virus that can cause paralysis. Although this is rare, it does happen—and today there are more cases of vaccine-derived polio than wild-type polio.

It is worth noting that since 2000, more than 10 billion doses of the oral polio vaccine have been administered to almost 3 billion children. It is estimated that more than 13 million cases of polio have been prevented through these efforts. But there have been just under 760 cases of vaccine-derived polio.

We could prevent these cases by switching to the injected vaccine, which wealthy countries have already done. But that’s not easy in countries with fewer resources and those trying to reach children in remote rural areas or war zones.

Even the MMR vaccine is not entirely risk-free. Some people will experience minor side effects, and severe allergic reactions, while rare, can occur. And neither vaccine offers 100% protection against disease. No vaccine does. “Even if you vaccinate 100% [of the population], I don’t think we’ll be able to attain herd immunity for polio,” says Abbas. It’s important to acknowledge these limitations.

While there are some small risks, though, they are far outweighed by the millions of lives being saved. “[People] often underestimate the risk of the disease and overestimate the risk of the vaccine,” says Moss.

In some ways, vaccines have become a victim of their own success. “Most of today’s parents fortunately have never seen the tragedy caused by vaccine-preventable diseases such as measles encephalitis, congenital rubella syndrome, and individuals crippled by polio,” says Kimberly Thompson, president of Kid Risk, a nonprofit that conducts research on health risks to children. “With some individuals benefiting from the propagation of scary messages about vaccines and the proliferation of social media providing reinforcement, it’s no surprise that fears may endure.”

“But most Americans recognize the benefits of vaccines and choose to get their children immunized,” she adds. Now, that is a sentiment I can relate to.


Now read the rest of The Checkup

Read more from MIT Technology Review‘s archive

A couple of years ago, the polio virus was detected in wastewater in London, where I live. I immediately got my daughter (who was only one year old then!) vaccinated. 

Measles outbreaks continue to spring up in places where vaccination rates drop. Researchers hope that searching for traces of the virus in wastewater could help them develop early warning systems. 

Last year, the researchers whose work paved the way for the development of mRNA vaccines were awarded the Nobel Prize. Now, scientists are hoping to use the same technology to treat and vaccinate against a host of diseases.

Most vaccines work by priming the immune system to respond to a pathogen. Scientists are also working on “inverse vaccines” that teach the immune system to stand down. They might help treat autoimmune disorders.

From around the web

A person in the US is the first in the country to have become severely ill after being infected with the bird flu virus, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shared on December 18. The case was confirmed on December 13. The person was exposed to sick and dead birds in backyard flocks in Louisiana. (CDC) 

Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, declared a state of emergency as the bird flu virus moved from the Central Valley to Southern California dairy herds. Since August, 645 herds have been reported to be infected with the virus. (LA Times)

Pharmacy benefit managers control access to prescription drugs for most Americans. These middlemen were paid billions of dollars by drug companies to allow the free flow of opioids during the US’s deadly addiction epidemic, an investigation has revealed. (New York Times)

Weight-loss drugs like Ozempic have emerged as blockbuster medicines over the past couple of years. We’re learning that they may have benefits beyond weight loss. Might they also protect organ function or treat kidney disease? (Nature Medicine)

Doctors and scientists have been attempting head transplants on animals for decades. Can they do it in people? Watch this delightful cartoon to learn more about the early head transplant attempts. (Aeon)