STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE REPRODUCTIVE BIOECONOMY MARKET: INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE REVIEW
Abstract
Introduction: The economy is a field that includes products, services, and trade, and reproductive bioeconomy refers to the field of reproduction and the ways of production, services, customers, and trade of reproductive cells and tissues. This research aimed to identify the key factors that shape the reproductive bioeconomy market and pinpoint opportunities for improvement as well as potential challenges. Accordingly, the study objective includes implementing an analysis to determine the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats in the reproductive bioeconomy market (SWOT analysis); this will enable the formulation of strategic guidelines for further development.
Methods: A review of the literature published from 2017 to 2024 was carried out. A search of academic and scientific papers was conducted using the PubMed, Springer, and Elsevier databases, as well as the Google Scholar tool, to identify additional relevant sources. The following search string was used:”(“donating reproductive cells“ OR „gamete donation“ OR „oocyte donation “ OR „sperm donation“) AND („biomedical engineering“ OR „in vitro gamete production biotechnology“ OR „gamete cryobiology“ OR „gamete banks“ OR „cross-border reproductive care“ OR „Transnational gamete donation“) AND („parenthood delay“ OR „career impact on reproduction“ OR „one donor donates to several banks“ OR „non-traditional family“ OR „altruism“ OR „reproductive work“ OR „bioethics in donating reproductive cells“)“. The factors that have the greatest impact on the development of the reproductive bioeconomy market have been identified using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guide, and classified with the help of the SWOT instrument for strategic analysis into strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.
Results: The review of the literature showed that the most influential forces of the reproductive bioeconomy are: (i) the strengths of the reproductive bioeconomy: the existence and development of biomedical engineering, the development of new technologies in biotechnology – Cryobiology, distribution and bioavailability of products – cryobanks; (ii) market opportunities: cross-border reproductive care (eng., Cross Border Reproductive Care), Transnational Gamete Donation Program (eng., Transnational Gamete Donation), and the diversity of consumers participating in the reproductive bioeconomy market; but also (iii) weaknesses: postponing parenthood to older ages, regulating the number of families per donor where different standards make monitoring difficult, the future formation of a complex, non-traditional, modern family; as well as (iv) potential threats in the form of unknown quality and future results, bioethical dilemmas, and that the commercialisation of reproductive work poses a threat to altruism.
Conclusion: This research demonstrates significant potential for the reproductive bioeconomy in treating infertility and promoting family diversification. Before implementing the reproductive material donation program and establishing a national registry for domestic and foreign citizens who are potential beneficiaries of the donation program, the regulatory framework must be transparent and aligned with ethical and normative regulations.
References
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The Bioeconomy to 2030: Designing a Policy Agenda (Internet). Paris: OECD; 2009 (cited 2025 Feb 7). Available from: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2009/04/the-bioeconomy-to-2030_g1gha07e/9789264056886-en.pdf
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). World population ageing 2019. New York: United Nations; 2020.
Birch K, Tyfield D. Theorizing the bioeconomy: biovalue, biocapital, bioeconomics or... what?. Sci Technol Hum Values. 2013;38(3):299-327. doi: 10.1177/0162243912442398.
Zilberman D, Kim E, Kirschner S, Kaplan S, Reeves J. Technology and the future bioeconomy. Agric Econ. 2013 Nov;44(Suppl 1):95-102. doi: 10.1111/agec.12054.
Marelli L, Testa G. Bioeconomies: Life, Technology, and Capital in the 21st Century. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2017. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55651-2.
Priefer C, Jörissen J, Frör O. Pathways to shape the bioeconomy. Resources. 2017;6(1):10. doi: 10.3390/resources6010010.
Vertommen S, Pavone V, Nahman M. Global fertility chains: an integrative political economy approach to understanding the reproductive bioeconomy. Sci Technol Hum Values. 2022;47(1):112-45. doi: 10.1177/0162243921996460.
Saitou M, Hayashi K. Mammalian in vitro gametogenesis. Science. 2021;374(6563). doi: 10.1126/science.aaz6830.
Sehic E, Brännström M, Hellström M. Progress in preclinical research on uterus bioengineering that utilizes scaffolds derived from decellularized uterine tissue. Biomed Mater Devices. 2023;1(1):66-73. doi: 10.1007/s44174-022-00036-x.
Dzobo K, Thomford NE, Senthebane DA, Shipanga H, Rowe A, Dandara C, et al. Advances in regenerative medicine and tissue engineering: innovation and transformation of medicine. Stem Cells Int. 2018;2018:2495848. doi: 10.1155/2018/2495848.
Tober D, Pavone V, Lafuente-Funes S, Konvalinka N. Eggonomics: vitrification and bioeconomies of egg donation in the United States and Spain. Med Anthropol Q. 2023;37(3):248-63. doi: 10.1111/maq.12767.
Homanen R. Reproducing whiteness and enacting kin in the Nordic context of transnational egg donation: matching donors with cross-border traveller recipients in Finland. Soc Sci Med. 2018;203:28-34. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.03.012.
Kroløkke C, Petersen TS, Herrmann JR, Bach AS, Adrian SW, Klingenberg R, et al. The cryopolitics of reproduction on ice: a new Scandinavian ice age. Emerald Publishing Limited; 2019. doi:10.1108/978-1-83867-042-920191010.
Pande A. “Mix or Match?”: transnational fertility industry and white desirability. Med Anthropol. 2021;40(4):335-47. doi: 10.1080/01459740.2021.1877289.
Ignjatović S. Bioetičke dileme i regulacija reproduktivnih prava u Srbiji i Evropskoj uniji u komparativnoj perspektivi (Internet). Academia.edu;2019 (cited 2025 Jan 9). Available from: https://www.academia.edu/105916645/Bioeti%C4%8Dke_dileme_i_regulacija_reproduktivnih_prava_u_Srbiji_i_Evropskojuniji_u_komparativnoj_perspektivi
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71.
Zoltnere V, Laca Z. Factors affecting the development of the bioeconomy in Latvia. In: Economic Science for Rural Development: Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference; 2021. p. 26-34. Available from: https://llufb.llu.lv/conference/economic_science_rural/2021/Latvia_ESRD_55_2021-26-34.pdf
Zhu Y, Kong B, Liu R, Zhao Y. Developing biomedical engineering technologies for reproductive medicine. Smart Med. 2022;1(1). doi: 10.1002/smmd.20220006.
Weerarathna IN, Kumar P, Luharia A, Mishra G. Engineering with Biomedical Sciences Changing the Horizon of Healthcare-A Review. Bioengineered. 2024 Dec;15(1):2401269. doi: 10.1080/21655979.2024.2401269.
Chattopadhyay S, Goswami A, Sil M. Nanobiotechnology: traditional re-interpreting personalized medicine through targeted therapies and regenerative solutions. Naunyn Schmiedeberg's Arch Pharmacol. 2025. doi: 10.1007/s00210-025-04038-6.
Cobo A, García-Velasco JA, Coello A, Domingo J, Pellicer A, Remohí J. Oocyte vitrification as an efficient option for elective fertility preservation. Fertil Steril. 2016 Mar;105(3):755-764.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.11.027.
Zhang PY, Fan Y, Tan T, Yu Y. Generation of artificial gamete and embryo from stem cells in reproductive medicine. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2020;8:781. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.00781.
Eyni H, Ghorbani S, Nazari H, Hajialyani M, Razavi Bazaz S, Mohaqiq M, et al. Advanced bioengineering of male germ stem cells to preserve fertility. J Tissue Eng. 2021;12:20417314211060590. doi: 10.1177/20417314211060590.
Sciorio R, Pluchino N, Fuller BJ. Review of human oocyte cryopreservation in ART programs: Current challenges and opportunities. Cryobiology. 2023;104590. doi: 10.1016/j.cryobiol.2023.104590.
Buriak I, Fleck RA, Goltsev A, Shevchenko N, Petrushko M, Yurchuk T, et al. Translation of cryobiological techniques to socially economically deprived populations – Part 1: Cryogenic preservation strategies. Journal of Medical Devices. 2020;14(1):010801. doi: 10.1115/1.4045878.
ESHRE Working Group on Oocyte Cryopreservation in Europe, Shenfield F, De Mouzon J, Scaravelli G, Kupka M, Ferraretti AP, et al. Oocyte and ovarian tissue cryopreservation in European countries: statutory background, practice, storage and use. Hum Reprod Open. 2017;2017(1). doi: 10.1093/hropen/hox003.
Salama M, Isachenko V, Isachenko E, Rahimi G, Mallmann PM, Westphal LM, Inhorn MC, Patrizio P. Cross border reproductive care (CBRC): a growing global phenomenon with multidimensional implications (a systematic and critical review). J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35:1277-88. doi: 10.1007/s10815-018-1181-x.
Tsekouropoulos G, Vasileiou A, Hoxha G, Dimitriadis A, Zervas I. Sustainable approaches to medical tourism: strategies for Central Macedonia/Greece. Sustainability. 2023;16(1):121. doi: 10.3390/su16010121.
Whittaker A, Inhorn MC, Shenfield F. Globalised quests for assisted conception: reproductive travel for infertility and involuntary childlessness. Glob Public Health. 2019;14(12):1669-88. doi: 10.1080/17441692.2019.1627479.
Alkorta I. Spanish legal reproscape: the making of a bio-industry. Law, Tech. & Hum. 2021;3:123. doi: 10.5204/lthj.1489.
Schurr C. Multiple mobilities in Mexico’s fertility industry. Mobilities. 2019;14(1):103-19. doi: 10.1080/17450101.2019.1522881.
Schurr C. The baby business booms: economic geographies of assisted reproduction. Geogr Compass. 2018;12(8). doi: 10.1111/gec3.12395.
Coccia ME, Rizzello F, Wakunga S, Badolato L, Evangelisti P, Bertocci F, et al. ‘Two countries-two labs’: the transnational gamete donation (TGD) programme to support egg donation. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020 Dec;37(12):3039-49. doi: 10.1007/s10815-020-01961-w.
Sciorio R, Pluchino N, Fuller BJ. Review of human oocyte cryopreservation in ART programs: current challenges and opportunities. Cryobiology. 2023;104590. doi: 10.1016/j.cryobiol.2023.104590.
Reeves M. Vital labors: transacting oocytes across borders in the post-Soviet space. Cult Anthropol. 2022;37(1):23-9. doi: 10.14506/ca37.1.04.
Di Battista S, Pivetti M. “Non-traditional” parents in contemporary societies. Soc Sci. 2024;13(1):2. doi: 10.3390/socsci13010002.
Miner SA. “I would want to pay her”: challenging altruistic egg exchanges in Canada through moral patchworks. Soc Sci Med. 2021;272:113733. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113733.
Bonan S, Chapel‐Lardic E, Rosenblum O, Dudkiewicz‐Sibony C, Chamouard L, Wolf JP, et al. Characteristics and intentions of heterosexual couples comprising a transgender man awaiting sperm donation to conceive a child. Andrology. 2021;9(6):1799-807. doi: 10.1111/andr.13103.
Gil-Arribas E, Blockeel C, Pennings G, Nekkebroeck J, Velasco JAG, Serna J, et al. Oocyte vitrification for elective fertility preservation: a SWOT analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2022;44(6):1005-14. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2022.02.001.
Molina-García L, Hidalgo-Ruiz M, Cocera-Ruíz EM, Conde-Puertas E, Delgado-Rodríguez M, Martínez-Galiano JM. The delay of motherhood: reasons, determinants, time used to achieve pregnancy, and maternal anxiety level. PLoS One. 2019;14(12). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227063.
ESHRE Working Group on Reproductive Donation, Kirkman-Brown J, Calhaz-Jorge C, Dancet EAF, Lundin K, Martins M, Tilleman K, et al. Good practice recommendations for information provision for those involved in reproductive donation. Hum Reprod Open. 2022 Feb 16;2022(1):hoac001. doi: 10.1093/hropen/hoac001.
Stookey J. Sperm you can bank on: a proposed federal regulatory scheme to increase consumer protection in the sperm donation industry (Internet). Newark (NJ): Seton Hall University School of Law; 2021 (cited 2025 Jan 9). Available from: https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2254&context=student_scholarship
Tober D, Kroløkke C. Emotion, embodiment, and reproductive colonialism in the global human egg trade. Gend Work Organ. 2021;28(5):1766-86. doi: 10.1111/gwao.12637.
Pennings G. A SWOT analysis of unregulated sperm donation. Reprod Biomed Online. 2023;46(1):203-9. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2022.09.013.
Homanen R. Creatively becoming a family in the fertility clinic? Matching donors with non-heterosexual and single recipients in commercial care. In: Andreassen R, Nebeling Petersen M, Harrison K, Andreassen C, editors. Creative Families: gender and technologies of everyday life. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2021. p. 19-41. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-70803-0_2.
Gameiro S. Technology-assisted parenthood and modern families in the 21st century. In: Hojjat M, Moyer A, editors. Modern relationships: romance, friendship, and family in the 21st century. New York (NY): Oxford University Press; 2024. p. 308. doi: 10.1093/oso/9780197655504.003.0018.
Cutas D, Smajdor A. Reproductive technologies and the family in the twenty-first century. In: Borovecki A, ten Have H, editors. The freedom of scientific research. Manchester: Manchester University Press; 2020. p. 57-70. doi: 10.7765/9781526146472.00014.
Pai HD, Baid R, Palshetkar NP, Pai A, Pai RD, Palshetkar R. Oocyte cryopreservation-current scenario and future perspectives: a narrative review. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2021;14(4):340-9. doi: 10.1016/j.cryobiol.2023.104590.
Canosa S, Maggiulli R, Cimadomo D, Innocenti F, Fabozzi G, Gennarelli G, et al. Cryostorage management of reproductive cells and tissues in ART: status, needs, opportunities, and potential new challenges. Reprod Biomed Online. 2023;47(5):103547. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2023.06.007.
Estudillo E, Jiménez A, Bustamante-Nieves PE, Palacios-Reyes C, Velasco I, López-Ornelas A. Cryopreservation of gametes and embryos and their molecular changes. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(19):10864. doi:1 0.3390/ijms221910864.
Perler L, Schurr C. Geographies of assisted reproduction: The Spanish egg donation economy as a global/intimate contact zone. Documents d'Anàlisi Geogràfica. 2022;68(2):313-33. doi: 10.5565/rev/dag.725.
Lafuente-Funes S, Pérez Orozco A. On (global) care chains in times of crisis: egg donation and domestic work in Spain. Tapuya: Latin Am Sci Technol Soc. 2020;3(1):354-76. doi: 10.1080/25729861.2020.1796326.
Pennings G. Should a gamete bank verify the non-medical information provided by a donor? Hum Reprod. 2024;39(1):deae004. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deae004.
Levin AT. The evolving ethics of sperm donation [dissertation]. Baltimore (MD): Johns Hopkins University; 2022.
Rocha DO, Melamed RMM, Braga DPD A F, Setti AS, Iaconelli Jr A, Borges Jr E. The child’s right to know versus the parents’ right not to tell: the attitudes of couples undergoing fertility treatments towards identity-release gamete donation. J Reprod Infertil. 2023;24(3):198. doi: 10.18502/jri.v24i3.13276.
Correia M, Rego G, Nunes R. The right to be forgotten versus the right to disclosure of gamete donors' ID: ethical and legal considerations. Acta Bioeth. 2021;27(1):69-76. doi: 10.4067/S1726-569X2021000100069.
Mulligan A. Anonymous gamete donation and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights: The case for incompatibility. Med Law Int. 2022;22(2):119-46. doi: 10.1177/096853322210096.
Kool EM, Bos AME, van der Graaf R, Fauser BCJM, Bredenoord AL. Ethics of oocyte banking for third-party assisted reproduction: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2018 Sep 1;24(5):615-35. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmy016.
