This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/12/test-tube-pioneers-joy-bob-edwards
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| The test tube pioneers who gave the world 5 million bundles of joy | |
| (about 1 hour later) | |
| "All he wanted was to help." I cannot think of a finer epitaph than that used yesterday of Robert Edwards by Peter Braude, his fellow embryologist. Edwards, with his partner, Patrick Steptoe, created the first "test-tube" baby in 1978. They must rank high in the league table of donors to happiness. Liberating conception from the womb to the petri dish brought hope to the 10% of couples who are reckoned to be infertile worldwide. Their joy has done more to drive embryo research through the bastions of ethical conservatism than any amount of argument, recently releasing human biology to unimagined excitement. Science is always claiming wealth, convenience and security. It too rarely claims joy. | |
| As a member of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority in the early 2000s, I watched the consequences of Edwards' work beat themselves against the rocks of prejudice. Embryos were already being screened for abnormalities. Stem cell research was just beginning. Cloning was fiercely controversial. Such "playing God" was resisted by conservative America and by other countries whose regimes were under strict religious influence. Science was wrestling daily with the "yuk factor", and not always winning. | As a member of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority in the early 2000s, I watched the consequences of Edwards' work beat themselves against the rocks of prejudice. Embryos were already being screened for abnormalities. Stem cell research was just beginning. Cloning was fiercely controversial. Such "playing God" was resisted by conservative America and by other countries whose regimes were under strict religious influence. Science was wrestling daily with the "yuk factor", and not always winning. |
| This was the true coalface of medical ethics. But I was always moved by Edwards' recall of his early days. In 1968, he had placed an egg and a sperm in a dish. "I looked down the microscope and saw something funny in the cultures. What I saw was a human blastocyst [pre-embryo] gazing up at me." | This was the true coalface of medical ethics. But I was always moved by Edwards' recall of his early days. In 1968, he had placed an egg and a sperm in a dish. "I looked down the microscope and saw something funny in the cultures. What I saw was a human blastocyst [pre-embryo] gazing up at me." |
| It was his eureka moment. It took a decade of research to produce Louise Brown, the first real baby. But Edwards and Steptoe never lost sight of their objective: "the desperation felt by couples who so wanted children. We had a lot of critics, but fought like hell for our patients." | It was his eureka moment. It took a decade of research to produce Louise Brown, the first real baby. But Edwards and Steptoe never lost sight of their objective: "the desperation felt by couples who so wanted children. We had a lot of critics, but fought like hell for our patients." |
| A book could be written (and perhaps has) on the conflict between reason, myth and prejudice in regulating science. Edwards was refused medical research council funds in 1970 on the grounds that "the world is so overpopulated". I wonder if drug research was likewise discouraged as needlessly keeping people alive? | A book could be written (and perhaps has) on the conflict between reason, myth and prejudice in regulating science. Edwards was refused medical research council funds in 1970 on the grounds that "the world is so overpopulated". I wonder if drug research was likewise discouraged as needlessly keeping people alive? |
| Worse was to follow. Nowhere are the ghosts of "faith" allowed such free rein as in the human body. Infertility was God's will. Babies might be born deformed or, worse, science might stop deformed babies being born. In vitro insemination risked reversing Darwin's survival of the fittest and lead to the downfall of mankind. Anyway, it was taking the fun out of sex. | Worse was to follow. Nowhere are the ghosts of "faith" allowed such free rein as in the human body. Infertility was God's will. Babies might be born deformed or, worse, science might stop deformed babies being born. In vitro insemination risked reversing Darwin's survival of the fittest and lead to the downfall of mankind. Anyway, it was taking the fun out of sex. |
| The Catholic church howled opposition to IVF,and still does. Even the Nobel committee waited until 2010 to reward the pioneers: Steptoe was dead and Edwards too ill to travel. Martin Johnson related in yesterday's Guardian how he was ostracised by his academiccolleagues for being Edwards' research assistant. Science can be the most radical, yet most narrow-minded, of professions. | The Catholic church howled opposition to IVF,and still does. Even the Nobel committee waited until 2010 to reward the pioneers: Steptoe was dead and Edwards too ill to travel. Martin Johnson related in yesterday's Guardian how he was ostracised by his academiccolleagues for being Edwards' research assistant. Science can be the most radical, yet most narrow-minded, of professions. |
| Such scholarship must clearly be regulated or politics will suppress it. American curbs on stem cell research under George Bush serve as an awful warning. Yet, in this field, research and regulation are in a perpetual race. When I joined the fertilisation authority, pre-implantation screening (and elimination) of faulty embryos was permitted for just a handful of inherited conditions, such as haemophilia and multiple sclerosis. Now it covers dozens, including some cancers, with the possibility of one day "evolving out" of the gene pool some of the most horrible disabilities. When this is cross-referenced to the human genome project, the possibilities for bespoke medicines and spare-part surgery seem limitless. | Such scholarship must clearly be regulated or politics will suppress it. American curbs on stem cell research under George Bush serve as an awful warning. Yet, in this field, research and regulation are in a perpetual race. When I joined the fertilisation authority, pre-implantation screening (and elimination) of faulty embryos was permitted for just a handful of inherited conditions, such as haemophilia and multiple sclerosis. Now it covers dozens, including some cancers, with the possibility of one day "evolving out" of the gene pool some of the most horrible disabilities. When this is cross-referenced to the human genome project, the possibilities for bespoke medicines and spare-part surgery seem limitless. |
| Other controversies were less clear-cut. If we can screen for inherited illness, what of genes associated with anger or depression? Should parents be allowed to choose the sex and hair colour of their children – given that we know one day they will? Californian sperm banks already offer doctors, mathematicians, blondes and quarter-backs. Why ban human cloning, when identical twins are clones? What is wrong with using animal or third-party cellular material to form embryos? And should women be allowed to sell their eggs? | Other controversies were less clear-cut. If we can screen for inherited illness, what of genes associated with anger or depression? Should parents be allowed to choose the sex and hair colour of their children – given that we know one day they will? Californian sperm banks already offer doctors, mathematicians, blondes and quarter-backs. Why ban human cloning, when identical twins are clones? What is wrong with using animal or third-party cellular material to form embryos? And should women be allowed to sell their eggs? |
| These questions evoke aversion and even repulsion in members of the public. But then repulsion greeted Queen Victoria using chloroform in childbirth, as setting a bad example to her people in avoiding God's punishment for Eve's sin. Much the same applies to many arguments about embryo research. | These questions evoke aversion and even repulsion in members of the public. But then repulsion greeted Queen Victoria using chloroform in childbirth, as setting a bad example to her people in avoiding God's punishment for Eve's sin. Much the same applies to many arguments about embryo research. |
| The reality is that the political community listens to voters before scientists. It does so especially when Big Science is seen to be dancing attendance on food producers, energy companies, drug corporations and other special interests. Therefore it is all the more rewarding to be reminded of a time when science-based joy broke the bounds of prejudice. It is good to remember a scientist "who just wanted to help". The result has been 5 million babies worldwide – and a whole lot of happiness. |