
One thing I have learned over the years (that I definitely did not have on my bingo card) is that the business of sperm donation is in desperate need of reform and regulation. For the benefit of all parties — the kids conceived, their families, and yes, the donors as well. Cause it’s not only weird tech billionaires actively trying to spawn hundreds of progeny; there are too many unsuspecting donors who trust clinics to use their, um, offering responsibly… only to learn years down the line that they’ve fathered 97 kids. Or, a statistically unlikely situation unfolds with devastating consequences. I almost covered this story back in May, when we learned that a man in Europe made a donation to one sperm bank that resulted in at least 67 children. The devastating factor is, though healthy himself, the donor (unknowingly) had a rare mutation to the TP53 gene that is linked to the rare Li-Fraumeni syndrome that significantly increases the risk of cancer. Turns out the reporting in May was wrong: the donor hasn’t fathered 67 children. The number is more like 197.
Numbers you don’t want to see: The man donated to a single private sperm bank in Denmark named the European Sperm Bank (ESB), but his sperm was later used by 67 clinics in 14 different countries. The final number of affected children may be higher still, “as data has not been obtained from all countries,” the BBC added. It is not known how many of these children have inherited the genetic mutation, but only a small proportion of those who have done so will avoid developing some form of cancer in their lifetimes. People with the condition have a 90% chance of developing one or more kinds of cancer by age 60, and around 50% do so before age 40, according to the Cleveland Clinic.
Children are already sick: Edwige Kasper, a biologist at Rouen University Hospital in France, identified an initial 67 children during a presentation at the annual conference of the European Society of Human Genetics in May. At the time, she said 10 of the children had been diagnosed with cancers such as brain tumors and Hodgkin lymphoma, and another 13 were carrying the gene but had not yet developed cancer. They will require regular medical examinations due to their increased risk of developing cancer, and have a 50% chance of transmitting it on to their own children, Kasper said back in May.
Unreal odds: On Wednesday, Clare Turnbull, professor of cancer genetics at the Institute of Cancer Research, London, told CNN that “Li Fraumeni syndrome is a devastating diagnosis to impart to a family.” “There is a very high risk of cancer throughout the lifetime,” she added, “with a sizeable risk of childhood-onset cancers.” The case “represents a highly unfortunate coincidence of two exceptionally unusual events: that the donor’s sperm carry mutations for an extremely rare genetic condition affecting fewer than 1 in 10,000 people and that his sperm has been in the conception of such an extraordinarily large number of children,” she added.
The sperm bank spox responds: Julie Paulli Budtz, a spokeswoman for the European Sperm Bank (ESB), told CNN that the company is “deeply affected by the case and the impact that the rare TP53 mutation has on a number of families, children and the donor.” “They have our deepest sympathy,” she added. “ESB tests and performs an individual medical assessment of all donors in full compliance with recognized and scientific practice and legislation,” Budtz said, adding that the ESB supports calls for a limit on the number of children that are allowed to be born using a single donor. “The legislation on these areas is complex, with many and often conflicting considerations, and the implementation of the regulation differs greatly from country to country,” she added. “Hence, there is need for common and transparent European standards.”
“Fewer than 1 in 10,000 people” have this genetic mutation, and one who does happens to donate sperm, and that donation happens to be overused across a continent. It’s statistically insane and emotionally heartbreaking/infuriating. So yes, reform and regulations are grossly overdue. On everything from how many times a donation can be used, to how many times a single donor can make a donation, to restricting the transportation of donations, to the screening process itself for qualifying to be a donor, to a million other factors I’m not even thinking of. My heart goes out to the children and families affected by Li-Fraumeni syndrome as a consequence of this grave lack of oversight. And it also goes out to the sperm donor; I can’t imagine the weight he feels knowing the pain he’s unwittingly bestowed upon hundreds of people.
photos credit: Melike B, Helena Lopes and Yan Krukau on Pexels












I can’t tell from reading this whether the man knew he had this mutation before he donated, and I would have a different opinion of this if he did, but otherwise I think everyone is taking the same chance with the person they want to get pregnant with whether it’s a romantic partner or an unknown donor. Any of us could have an unknown mutation or a recessive gene that we don’t know about until it shows itself. Also, “1 in 10,000” doesn’t sound so “extremely rare” to me when it’s applied to the *billions* of people on earth. My heart goes out to the children and families affected by this.
It’s true that people who become pregnant the old-fashioned way are taking a chance on the genetics of their partner. The difference in that case is that you (hopefully) know the person and have had the time to realize that, for instance, every single person in their family has cancer, and that maybe gives you time to have genetic testing done, or at least gives you pause. And I agree that 1 in 10,000 doesn’t sound super rare, but it’s relatively rare, but that rarity is obliterated when a donor fathers 200 children.
The donor did not know he had the mutation when he made the donation in 2005 and it was not found in the prescreening process. He is asymptomatic; the discovery was made when the children started getting sick. It’s so sad.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgmy90z991o
1/10,000 is considered relatively rare. Rarity is about the fraction, not the absolute number.
I thought that I had read somewhere years ago that the ESB greatly limits the number of times a donor’s sperm can be used and that this was one of the reasons it was highly ranked as a source of sperm (in addition to their low costs to prospective parents and easy accessibility). Now the onus is being placed on other clinics, and on legislation in other countries? I hadn’t realised that they had begun to serve as a source of “bulk” sperm to other clinics. If they test so thoroughly, considering that genetic features/illnesses, etc. tend to be one of the important issues when it comes to artificial insemination, how come they missed this?
A sad state of affairs indeed for donor and chidren, and of course for the parents.
He donated in 2005. It’s likely they didn’t have the ability to test for this 20 years ago.
You would think they’d put limits on the number of potential children that can conceived from a single person, I feel like this has been an issue with artificial insemination for years. I think it’s interesting that they did not describe the donor, I’m guessing this guy is tall, handsome, smart, and otherwise very robust and healthy for it to be chosen so many times
I believe they did put limits on the number of children for a single donor but, as shown in the documentary “the man who fathered 1000 children,” some men – especially white supremacists find ways around those limits
Why in the world are they letting a single donor’s essence be used that many times? And now they have how many children with cancer and the odds are high and then if they want children their odds are high too? There definitely needs to be better screenings and a limit on donations.
It’s a sad story because 53 of his children are from Belgium, where I live. Some of those 53 children are siblings, concieved with the same sperm.
This story has lead to lots of questions, how this was able to happen. In Belgium the rule is one donor for max 6 families. But it seems that some hospitals in Belgium just ignored that rule, because around 36 families were allowed to choose that donor.
This is beyond sad. I can’t imagine the heartache and fear these parents are going through. It sounds as if even though the donor is asymptomatic, for some reason the gene ibecomes especially virulent in the children. How very tragic.
Totally agree that “the business of sperm donation is in desperate need of reform and regulation”. One dude from Holland, Jonathan Jacob Meijer, is the subject of Netflix’s 3 part documentary, “The Man With 1000 Kids”. Even worse are the doctors who impregnate their own fertility patient without their consent. Amazingly enough, the US does not have ANY nationwide laws protecting women against “fertility fraud”. Indiana finally passed laws against this after Dr. Donald Cline Impregnated 96 (and counting) patients. See Netflix documentary “our Father”. There have now been 44 (and counting) cases of doctors who impregnated their patients with their own sperm without their consent.
Horrible! Allowing 197 uses from 1 donor is insane! There was a fertility doctor in the US who himself impregnated about 100 women. Aside from the tragedy for these children who may get cancer as well as risk passing that gene to their own offspring, I worry also about the possibilities of half-siblings unknowingly meeting, marrying, and procreating. Maybe donated sperm is used anywhere in the country, reducing that risk, but if a sperm bank utilizes donations in the vicinity of the recipients, that could happen.
Oh god did not think of the unknowing siblings, Jesus
What I’ve always wondered about is the possibility that two people might marry, unaware that they are both sperm donor babies and it was the same donor. That would make them half siblings. Do parents tell their children they were conceived via sperm donor? And if you know you are such a person, can you check the details anywhere?
If you and your partner decide to use a sperm donor, can you look at a list of attributes of the sperm donor or is that too close to selecting your offspring?
All valid points that were raised during “Our Father” documentary. Low price consumer DNA tests have let the cat out of the bag on the doctor impregnation scandals. The guy from Holland was in cahoots with several other “super donors” who were having a competition to see who could father the most children in Africa. Their stated goal, believe it or not, was to bleach Africa.
That is absolutely believable. Racist demons know no depths.
Oh my god. So tragic!
😔
I’m going to have to challenge that the gene causes cancer until I can research this more. For decades—since the 1980’s— science has been focusing their money and research on genetics being the cause of every illness from cancer to autism to Parkinson’s. No one has been looking into environmental factors. And hundreds of research studies have been able to prove that genetics only accounts for 10-15% of all Parkinson’s cases. What’s responsible for the vast majority? Think toxins, pollutants, parasites, chemicals, heavy metals—everything that can break through the blood brain barrier and cause neurological damage. These same ingredients can disrupt cells in our body and contribute to cancer. Will all of this donor’s offspring get cancer? Probably not. Are they at a higher risk? For sure. And those who are exposed to food sprayed with pesticides, growth hormones, chemical cleaners, cosmetics, food and environmental mold, unsafe drinking and ground water, fertilizer, plastic food containers, car exhaust, EMF’s and more are even more likely to get sick. Until I look into this more, I’m not convinced that cancer is entirely genetic.
There absolutely needs to be more regulation of the infertility industry. I think there are better protections and stronger restrictions for donors. But not enough. Anyone considering being a donor or using a donor for conception should research their clinic and donation bank.