More questions than answers
The proposal talks about temperature and pressure control, gas and nutrient exchange, and integration into a humanoid for social interaction, but critical details are missing. How does implantation occur? What are the oxygenation and CO2 elimination protocols? The role of the artificial placenta, what will immunoendocrine monitoring be like, and above all, how will safety and neurological viability be checked until the end of pregnancy?
In the company's plan, fertilization and implantation in a controlled environment, fetal development in the artificial uterus with continuous monitoring and in the end an assisted delivery, the technical leap, however, is enormous to go from what already exists, partial support in animal models for extremely premature babies to a complete gestation outside the human body, something not yet clinically proven.
The most solid reference remains the study of lambs in Biobag, about four weeks of support, nice for neonatology, not an entire pregnancy. Even if the hardware works, the bridge with the would already be vital, physiological control models to adjust flows and hormones, computer vision, biometric signals to monitor development and hemodynamics and decision systems aligned to medical standards.
In the product discourse, the pregnant humanoid points to infertility and those who seek to avoid the risks of human pregnancy. Realism requires stages, validating partial ectogenesis in humans, proving non-inferiority in neurological, pulmonary and immunological outcomes and framing regulations and rights.
Who is the patient? How is the affiliation? For now it is just a vision in development without a clinical trial that proves complete gestation outside the uterus. If this technology really arrives, the question changes. Are we ready to outsource pregnancy to machines? And you, in your opinion, who should regulate the beginning and end of a life outside the womb?
