A decision tree for genetics or sperm-sexing entities considering sales of sexed sperm is discussed in terms of: (a) how best to avoid harm; (b) how best to do good; (c) needed synergy with other assisted reproductive technologies; (d) constraints on biotechnology; and (e) costs with current and likely technologies versus potential benefits to producers. The sexed-sperm industry might wish to take a pro-active stance on societal issues potentially affecting use of sexed sperm. For most sales in animal agriculture, cost of added value must be <50% of benefit. Cost is less important for emotionally-driven uses with horses and human beings. Current procedures for flow-sorting allow most sperm to retain their fertilizing potential. Added cost to produce and package 2 x 10(6) sperm is estimated at US $30 to US $46 with flow sorted sperm. Estimating cost of any alternative technology is premature. For IVF/embryo transfer (ET), cost and numbers of flow-sorted sexed sperm are appropriate for commercial use. For use in low-dose AI, however, added cost to supply one insemination dose must be near US $12. Flow-sorting instruments with higher throughput and lower purchase and operating costs are obligatory for economic application in most AI situations. Developers of antibody-based separations also will face issues of retention of fertilizing potential while minimizing cell loss, separation of living from dead sperm concurrent with sperm sexing, output, and cost. To benefit producers and consumers in a changing world, genetics and sperm-sexing companies will have to collaborate and interface to provide funding for needed research and development and to recover these costs, using mechanisms not yet obvious. (C) 1999 by Elsevier Science Inc.
