The Dystopian Future of IVF

In a recent 60 minutes segment on the growing prevalence of elective egg freezing, Dr. Tormer Singer, a reproductive endocrinology and infertility specialist at Northwell Health in Manhattan, NY made a jarring prediction for the future. “In a generation from now,” he said, “when couples want to have kids, most likely they’re going to be using artificial reproductive techniques.” In his view, sex will no longer be for procreation, only pleasure, while assisted reproduction will be the superior choice for making babies by eliminating the possibility of issues like “chromosomal abnormalities, miscarriage, [or] twins.”

But is Dr. Singer’s vision of the future a wild speculation or a prescient forecast of rapidly evolving assisted reproductive technologies (ART)? In this series of articles, we will explore some of the recent advancements in ART that put us closer than ever to this dystopian future.

Part I – Robots and AI create human babies

Enter Conceivable Life Sciences, a biotechnology company based in New York that has already developed the world’s first AI-powered automated IVF lab. AURA, according to the company’s website, “performs the more than 200 steps required to combine egg and sperm to create an embryo.” The system is comprised of a series of six workstations powered by robotic automation, which perform preparation of culture dishes, processing of sperm and eggs, fertilization, incubation of embryos, and embryo freezing and thawing.

One of the notable components of the AURA system is the ICSI, or intracytoplasmic sperm injection, workstation. ICSI is a widely utilized technique that was originally intended for cases of male factor infertility, but is now used in over 70% of IVF cycles in the United States. Conventional IVF involves the placement of a specific concentration of sperm and the woman’s retrieved oocytes together in a dish to allow fertilization to occur. In contrast, during an ICSI procedure, usually performed by an embryologist, a single sperm is selected, immobilized, and drawn up into a micropipette with a needle point. The sperm is then inserted directly into the egg by piercing both its outer and cytoplasmic membranes, forcing fertilization. Conceivable’s vision for the automated ICSI workstation is to introduce precision into this “single cell surgery” by removing the embryologist.

Neither conventional IVF nor ICSI are performed without increased risk to the health of the baby. Babies conceived through ART have lower birthweights and an increased risk of stillbirth. Additionally, both techniques cause increased incidence of congenital and musculoskeletal abnormalities compared to natural conception. Further compounding these issues is the utilization of suboptimal sperm for ICSI. This increases the chance of genetic abnormalities in the resulting embryo, particularly in the sex chromosomes, which ultimately leads to either impaired development of the individual or the complete elimination of that embryo’s potential to be selected for implantation.

In their study, published in May 2025, chief medical officer of Conceivable, Dr. Alejandro Chavez-Badiola and colleagues report the first live birth after performing a “digitally controlled, remotely operated ICSI.” The procedure was performed for a couple in their early 40s experiencing primary infertility and a diminished ovarian reserve. Previous cycles did not result in any viable embryos, so donor eggs were used.

According to the study, 23 individual steps involving the manipulation of the egg and the sperm are required to carry out ICSI on a single oocyte. 49.6% of these steps were performed autonomously via robotic arms under control of AI digital commands, including the selection of the “best” sperm to be used and the sperm injection to achieve fertilization itself. The remainder of the required steps were completed via remote digital control in Guadalajara, Mexico to a clinic in New York over 2,000 miles away.

A total of 4 embryos were created, two from remote ICSI and two from manual ICSI. AI technology ERICA, or Embryo Ranking Intelligent Classification Algorithm, was utilized to select the “best” embryo for transfer. Selection using ERICA is based on morphological characteristics from a single image of each embryo to predict ploidy, or number of chromosome copies, and implantation potential. Transfer of a fresh embryo generated by remote ICSI was performed, but it failed to implant. Subsequently, a second embryo from remote ICSI was warmed and transferred, resulting in pregnancy and ultimately a live birth.

In an article published early last week in Newsweek, the parents of the world’s first AI baby applaud the technology and state that they will share the story of their son’s conception via AI with him in the future. The hope is that this technology will reduce the cost of IVF by 70%, catering to the growing demand for IVF cycles in the U.S. and globally, thereby creating thousands, if not millions more IVF embryos if that demand is met. Pilot studies using AURA have been completed, resulting in 18 live births, and clinical trials are ongoing after three years of development, propelled by over $38 million in funding.

Although the response from those within the IVF industry to the development of this technology seems largely self-congratulatory, its utilization raises a significant number of ethical questions. First and foremost, should we allow fully automated robots to be performing the actual fertilization of human eggs and sperm to create human embryos? Is AI prediction inherently better or worse than human judgement? How will children created with robots feel 10-20 years in the future when the learn that their genetics were ultimately selected by robots and artificial intelligence? And ultimately, are we as a society ok with the further stripping of humanity from the beginnings of life in the name of optimization and precision?

As technologies like AURA and ERICA blur the lines between biology and automation, we are entering an era where the most intimate, biological act of creating life is becoming increasingly mechanized and data-driven. The convenience, affordability, and perceived superiority of these techniques will undoubtedly draw in more hopeful parents—but at what cost? At the very least, this constitutes experimentation on embryos who cannot consent, using them as test subjects for unproven and experimental technologies.

The promises are seductive: reduced human error, fewer chromosomal abnormalities, and seemingly more successful pregnancies. Yet, we do not know the long-term outcomes. The utilization of ICSI remains contentious even amongst those in the industry. Research indicates it likely leads to increased risk of birth defects and developmental disorders due to the prerequisite of suboptimal sperm or lack of natural sperm selection. The first ICSI babies were born in 1992, making long-term studies on the multi-generational effects of ICSI impossible at this point in time. Not only that, but for every advance in precision, there’s a quiet erosion of the human touch—of the messy, unpredictable, deeply personal nature of reproduction. The shift from man and woman, from bedside to server rack, from embryologist to algorithm, could fundamentally reshape not just how we conceive children, but how we think about parenthood, family, and identity.

For now, the world’s first AI-conceived baby is being viewed as a medical marvel. Allowed to continue, in a generation, he may simply be the first of many. This is not progress—this is a continuation and the slippery slope of allowing the fertility industry to go unchecked.

The future of IVF may indeed be more efficient, more accessible, and more successful. But we must ask ourselves: will it still be human?