Three-quarters of egg and sperm donors at major US bank want to know number of children born from their donations
Sperm and egg donors' views on identity release, donor offspring information and genetic testing. (Pennings, 2025)
Pennings, G., Lassen, E., Lemmen, J. G., & Skytte, A. B. (2025). Sperm and egg donors' views on identity release, donor offspring information and genetic testing. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-025-03588-1
Geographic Region: United States
Research Question: Do sperm and egg donors hold different views on identifiability, information about donor offspring, genetic testing, and extended carrier screening?
Design: Cross-sectional comparative survey study that used online questionnaires sent to donors from the same gamete bank at two different time points, three years apart, with sperm donors surveyed in 2020 and egg donors in 2023. The 36-question survey covered six domains: demographic characteristics, psychosocial aspects, motivations to donate, attitudes toward anonymity, attitudes toward children, and attitudes toward genetic testing. Only questions that were identical for both donor groups were included in the comparative analysis.
Sample: 77 donors (39 egg donors and 38 sperm donors) who donated at one facility at Cryos International Sperm & Egg Bank. The response rates differed significantly between groups, with egg donors achieving a 14.5% response rate (39 out of 269 invited) and sperm donors achieving a 52.9% response rate (38 out of 72 invited). The egg donor population included both current and former donors, with some having donated up to 10 years previously, while sperm donors were only active donors at the time of data collection. 74% of egg donors and 53% of sperm donors had partners. Approximately 31% of both groups had children of their own.
Key Findings
Both groups were primarily motivated by helping childless couples (around 85%) and earning money (around 70%), with no statistically significant differences between the groups in motivations.
Egg donors were more interested in knowing if their donation resulted in a pregnancy and/or birth than sperm donors (90% vs. 68%). This difference was statistically significant.
77% of egg donors and 71% of sperm donors wanted information on the number of children born from their donations.
87% of egg donors and 71% of sperm donors wanted to be informed if a donor child is born with a hereditary disease
Approximately 70% of both groups chose identity-release donation over anonymous donation at the time of donation.
While about 50% of both groups intended to tell their own children, egg donors were more uncertain (51% "don't know/maybe later"). 11% of sperm donors did not intend to tell their own children.
Nearly all donors (over 90% of both groups) were open with at least some people about their donation. All donors with partners had informed them, and almost all partners approved of the donation.
Large majorities of both groups supported genetic testing (93% egg donors, 82% sperm donors) and extended carrier screening (87% and 76% respectively).
Less than 10% of donors in either group occasionally regretted their decision to donate.
Limitations: Low response rate for egg donors (15%) makes generalization difficult. Single-center study from one US gamete bank limits broader applicability. Different populations surveyed (egg donors included past donors, sperm donors were only current active donors). Those who chose non-identity release might be less likely to respond to surveys, preferring to maintain privacy.
Applications: The strong preference for identity-release options among both donor types provides evidence that may inform regulatory discussions
Funding Source: Not explicitly stated in the article.
Lead Author: Guido Pennings is affiliated with the Department of Philosophy and Moral Science, Bioethics Institute Ghent, Universiteit Gent, Belgium, and serves as a member of the External Scientific Advisory Committee of Cryos International. No personal connection to donor conception was identified.
Regulatory Context
No comprehensive federal laws regulate gamete donation; the process is largely self-regulated by the fertility industry.
The FDA provides oversight primarily for donor screening and testing for infectious diseases.
The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) provides non-binding ethical guidelines.
No legal limits exist on donor compensation.
Anonymous donations are not legally prohibited.
State laws vary widely regarding assisted reproduction and parentage.
Gamete banks and fertility clinics have significant autonomy in setting policies regarding identity release, donor limits, compensation, and donor-offspring contact.
Related Posts
Study reveals key differences in how egg and sperm donors describe themselves (Tohme, 2024)
Current egg donor counseling often prioritizes short-term preparation over long-term emotional resilience (Pote, 2025)
Identity-release donors more likely to be accepted than anonymous donors in international screening study (Pacey, 2023)
My son is thanks to a donor embryo. The OG family was a single dad by choice. I often wonder if the dad, his egg donor and the surrogate who carried the first baby wonder about any other kids that were born did to the batch of embryos. There are at least three live births, including the original baby. And I think at least two losses (including the embryo that did not survive the thaw that the embryo that became my son was transferred from. I like to think that the embryo was a girl).
I think it’s routine here in New Zealand to advise the donor when a baby is born from their donation. Not 100% sure, but when my son was born I had to give them all the information to go on the register. And I understand they told the donor that a child had been born. I’ve been trying to contact the (sperm) donor but systems are pretty broken here and it seems it takes a long time.