# Infuriating article in 'New Scientist'



## Guest (Oct 28, 2006)

Hello there!

I always respected the 'New Scientist' magazine and thought it's a great way to explain to lay-people, like me, about what happens in science. But I just read their article on ivf and I am just furious!

The article assumes that couples go for ivf to choose children's genetic features. There's no talk about the pain and misery of infertility, which is the ONLY reason we go for ivf. It makes all of us look like weird people from sci-fi 

It's because of articles like that, that when we finally overcome our shyness and pain and share the decision to have ivf with people, we're not always looked at with sympathy. It didn't happen to me a lot, but I had one person who hinted we were doing this weird thing that normal people don't do, that there must be something wrong with us. It wasn't said in so many words, but implied, and it hurts.

Should we write to the 'New Scientist' and tell them what we think? What do you say?

The article is online in this web address: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/mg19225741.300

Rivka

This post contains an unconfirmed link/information and readers are reminded that FertilityFriends.co.UK or its owners are not responsible for the content of external internet sites


----------



## Flopsy (Sep 18, 2003)

Agree Rivka,

It's trivial and condensending. Pop-science for the masses.

Kindest regards,


----------



## Lorna (Apr 8, 2004)

Rivka

I found this an article, of two halves. I found the ideas expounded in the first two paragraphs ridiculous.
There has been masses of legislation, introduced, to eliminate discrimination. And that process was accelerated when the UK agreed to adopt The Burden Of Proof legislation proposed by Brussels. What does that mean,? If someone introduces a rule, that excludes others, then it is up to the proposer of the rule, to *prove* that rule is justified.
The BMA can exclude people, who havent spent many years studying and training to be doctors, but an employer cant exclude someone from a job, because of an accident of birth, ie gender, skin colour, disability, whatever..... and I believe in some circumstances, an employer is prevented from excluding a convicted criminal.
So the nightmare scenario, portrayed within this article; whereby Vincent is excluded from society, is, IMO, scurrilous reporting. The knee jerk reaction is Look technology gone crazy. We need to prevent this happening. Lets have lots of controls.
In fact, the UK, has done a tremendous amount, to make any form of discrimination illegal. And so the idea, that modern day Britain is going to make it illegal for a group of people to participate in normal life is, IMO, ludicrous. Its fiction.

The second half on selective breeding, strikes me as quite a good article. A bit light weight, but not bad.

Most people think of selective breeding as Eugenics, but the original definition of Eugenics is to improve the human race
http://galton.org/essays/1900-1911/galton-1904-am-journ-soc-eugenics-scope-aims.htm
So when you send your little darling to a top school, or give your budding musical genius violin lessons, you are developing your childs abilities to their utmost advantage. In fact when you go college and study for more qualifications, you too are improving the human race, and therefore by a strict definition, you are practising Eugenics. And I am all for it. Absolutely 100% for the above!

My feeling is that during the 20th century, probably during the second world war, the word eugenics became corrupted. And now we think, the word eugenics means to improve the human race by selective reproduction.
http://www.uvm.edu/~cgep/Education/Glossary.html
Maybe you are against * all* forms of selective reproduction. Me, Im all for a woman/couple choosing to selectively reproduce, *if* that is *their* choice.
I think, that people in the UK practise Eugenics (selective reproduction) in many different forms, but not in an obvious way. 
Example: - If you object to your child marrying an unqualified, unemployed, career criminal, and you would rather they married that nice solicitor, who goes to church on Sunday: you are indirectly trying to influence, what sort of children, they might have, and therefore, trying to control, who they breed with. You cant get away from it, what you are doing is indirectly practising Eugenics!
We practise Eugenics in other ways. I had a friend, who went for her 18 week scan. It showed that her child was so severely handicapped that it could never have a normal life. While she was trying to decide, what to do, the baby died, but under UK law, she would have been allowed to terminate that pregnancy.
40 years ago, I doubt anyone had heard of an amniocentesis test, and probably in the early days, amniocentesis had a very high miscarriage rate. But nowadays, an amniocentesis test is recommended for certain women, under certain conditions. It carries a relatively low risk of miscarriage, and it is an appropriate test for some women. But the results of an amniocentesis test can show severe abnormalities, and the parents, may at that time chose, to terminate the pregnancy. Another Eugenic practice!
In fact, most antenatal screening can be considered Eugenic, as it aim, is to screen for genetic abnormalities, and so make sure undesirable traits can be eliminated. Physical handicap appears to be considered, an undesirable trait
But we can go even further back. Do you consider cystic fibrosis, to be an undesirable trait? If you and your partner, carried the same gene for cystic fibrosis, would you consider doing a Pre-Implantation Diagnostic (PGD) test on your embryos, so that you could select the ones, free of cystic fibrosis? Is eliminating embryos that would produce a child affected by a hereditary disease, a desirable thing to do? If you think it is, then you are doing selective reproduction. 
And lets go even further back to preconception. How many of you take prenatal vitamins? It has been shown, that women who take folic acid, are less likely to have a child affected by Spina Bifida. By taking prenatal vitamins, you are hoping to improve, the health, of your yet to be conceived/unborn child. Eugenics!

So in conclusion, I believe, that I try to do the best for my kids, from taking prenatal vitamins, to reading to them, to getting them into good schools. As a society, we already do loads of things to improve the human race by selective reproduction. So if the technology described in New Scientist, was *PROVEN*, and *SAFE*; of course people would chose to select the embryos, that *might* give their child, the best possible chance in life.
But this is all pie in the sky, which is exactly what New Scientist is about So for the moment, I will enjoy my children, who are just a random collection of genes. And they are gorgeous. Well I would say that 

Lorna

This post contains an unconfirmed link/information and readers are reminded that FertilityFriends.co.UK or its owners are not responsible for the content of external internet sites


----------



## Charlies-Mum (May 25, 2005)

I also read this as an article of two halves 

If I had the chance to ensure my child was healthy then I'd go for it - what caring mother wouldn't wish that for their child?  I wish there was a test to guarantee that my children wouldn't have the lethal condition that effected my son Char;oe . It has caused me a lot of anxiety during this pregnancy (thankfully now confirmed that this beanie is ok!) no knowing whether the condition would reoccur.

But New Scientist is a magazine for SCIENTISTS - it talks about issues that are 'pie in the sky' by its very nature and the audience it aims for is not interested in the 'here and now', but in what is possible in the future by way of discovery and development.

We all take IF very seriously, but for many people who are not effected by IF or its effects, the idea of screening or choice is not a serious issue but a moral one. Take many hollywood films for instance....  

I'm not outraged by the article, but do think it could have been edited better - ho hum...

Deb


----------

