In Vitro Nobel Prize

Wednesday, October 06, 2010

Robin Marantz Henig, contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine and author of Pandora's Baby: How the First Test Tube Babies Sparked the Reproductive Revolution addresses the history and future of IVF treatments in light of the Nobel Prize for Medicine win yesterday.


Robin Marantz Henig

Comments [16]

SAP from NY

I was very disappointed with the coverage on the issue as it only covered one part of the story. Yes IVF has helped numerous couples have a baby. What about the other side of the story?
All the people that have emptied out their pocketbooks and depleted their ovarian reserves due to aggressive protocols by the "best" doctors and still have an empty nest at home? What about all the health issues linked to ivf babies and the increased risk of certain types of cancers for the women?

Julia speaks of it beautifully here in her blog:
IVF: The Heavy Cost of the Nobel Prize

In order to do a fair and just job covering the topic the show should have follow up on the other side of the story..

Nov. 14 2010 10:08 PM
JoAnn Srebnik

My husband was the Chairman of a company outside of Denver in 1985 who used the embryologist from Dr. Steptoe to artificially inseminate surrogate cows with embryos from superior cows thus enabling farmers to have a more productive herd, and also allowing for embryo exports to third world countries. The company was often surrounded by protesters from as far away as California for "interfering with God's plans".

Oct. 06 2010 12:01 PM

The Nobel Prize is intended for those who confer the "greatest benefit on mankind" in their field. Considering that mankind's greatest problem today could arguably be said to be overpopulation, it seems a travesty to award this prize for IVF.

Oct. 06 2010 11:52 AM

I'm a big believer of "Brave New World" and a follower of Aldous Huxley. I think corporations should pay their women to produce the workers of the future, in accordance to corporate needs. And to vary their intelligence accordingly. The old "family" system is obsolete and unworkable. The production and rearing of children has to be regulated by the state, but be the product of corporations.It' efficient and more cost effective and less hypocritical or happenstance than the old "family" cottage industry methods.

Oct. 06 2010 11:50 AM
Ann from Manhattan

Although I agree whole heartily with IVF as an option for future parents and have many friends that have used it. As the natural child born to a mother who was then 38 I must say that I think that parents and doctors are not thinking about the future of their children’s lives. By having a child at in your 40’s and 50’s you are asking your child to be a parent of your aging before they may be ready emotionally or physically for it. I wish that parents would stop and think what life for their 20 year old will be like if they develop an illness. Do you really want your 20 year old to have to face the decisions and realities of caring for a sick parent?

Oct. 06 2010 11:50 AM
Leah from Brooklyn

Bernie, what a hurtful comment. Many women cannot conceive in the "natural" way but still want to become parents, either through adoption or fertility treatments. By your logic of biologic determinism people with cancer genes should just accept their fate and eschew radiation.

Oct. 06 2010 11:50 AM

Maybe it's just me, but aren't responsible people supposed to be trying to REDUCE the world's population?

Oct. 06 2010 11:43 AM
Raul from NYC

Cost is also a factor in planting multiple eggs. If it didn't cost so much, mothers would probably choose to put back one egg more often.

Oct. 06 2010 11:43 AM
Edward from NJ

As I understand it, high-number multiple births are generally a side effect of other forms of infertility treatments not IVF.

Oct. 06 2010 11:42 AM
Leah from Brooklyn

A friend of mine who is in her late 30s and is single decided a few years ago she wanted to become a parent. She originally considered adoption and attempted to adopt a child from Asia, but the process was so prohibitively expensive she opted for a sperm donor and IVF instead (surprisingly it was cheaper). She gave birth five months ago to a beautiful baby girl and is a wonderful mother.

Oct. 06 2010 11:42 AM
Adrienne from New York

While this is an amazing accomplishment, I wish we lived in a world where all of the children who have already been born have loving homes. I'd like to see adoption rates increase rather than IVF rates.

Oct. 06 2010 11:41 AM
Richard Johnston from Upper west side

IVF is a great medical advance. It should always be considered an elective procedure under any health plan. It should not be included in coverage for any national health plan.

Oct. 06 2010 11:41 AM
Adrienne from New York

While this is an amazing accomplishment, I wish we lived in a world where all of the children who have already been born have loving homes. I'd like to see adoption rates increase rather than IVF rates.

Oct. 06 2010 11:39 AM
Lola from Canada

EDIT: *make* population control popular.

Oct. 06 2010 11:38 AM
lena from brooklyn

i'm very thankful to dr. robert edwards. i'm 7 mo pregnant now via IVF.

Oct. 06 2010 11:37 AM
Lola from Canada

I'll believe the planet has a fighting chance when they give a Nobel prize to the guy who'll population control popular.

Oct. 06 2010 11:36 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.