July 2008, Robert Edwards, Lesley Brown, Louise Brown and her son, Cameron
Daylife/AP Photo used by permission
The Nobel prize for physiology or medicine for 2010 has been awarded to the British scientist who pioneered in-vitro fertilisation, a procedure that has helped in the conception and birth of 4 million people around the world since the first test-tube baby, Louise Brown in 1978…
Edwards developed the IVF technique in a research career that started in 1958 at the National Institute for Medical Research in London and continued at the world’s first IVF centre, the Bourn Hall Clinic in Cambridge, founded with the English surgeon, Patrick Steptoe…
Robert Edward’s wife, Ruth, and his family said in a statement today that they were “thrilled and delighted” at the award of the Nobel Prize. “The success of this research has touched the lives of millions of people worldwide. His dedication and single-minded determination, despite opposition from many quarters, has led to the successful application of his pioneering research…”
“Opposition from many quarters” means the same religious fanatics, political opportunists and cowards who have always rallied together in vain attempts to halt human knowledge and application. Whatever the science, the fearful, the indoctrinated, those afraid to venture out into this good night try their best to stop progress, censor understanding, disallow choice.
Speaking in 2008, Edwards recalled the moment he first created a fertilised human embryo in 1968. “I’ll never get forget the day I looked down the microscope and saw something funny in the cultures. I looked down the microscope and what I saw was a human blastocyst gazing up at me. I thought: ‘We’ve done it.'”
“The most important thing in life is having a child,” he said. “Nothing is more special than a child. Steptoe and I were deeply affected by the desperation felt by couples who so wanted to have children. We had a lot of critics but we fought like hell for our patients…”
Three decades on, IVF is an established technique to help infertile couples have children. There have been many advances on Edwards’ initial research: a single sperm can now be injected directly into an egg and the extraction of eggs from ovaries has been improved so that it causes less trauma. IVF is also at the centre of a technique, called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), that screens fertilised embryos for genetic conditions such as cystic fibrosis or Huntington’s disease…
Martin Johnson, professor of reproductive sciences at the University of Cambridge, said he was delighted. “This is long overdue…Bob’s work has always been controversial but he has never shrunk from confronting that controversy. He was a real visionary, and always ahead of his time on so many issues – not just IVF – but also on PGD in the 60s, stem cells in the 70s, and the whole process of thinking ethically.”
Bravo! The world has moved ahead another few steps because of Doctor Edwards. Modern medicine casts aside the curses of priests and pundits like the dust mites they imitate.
Eideard 
You seem to imply that we should allow science to “progress” without question, regardless of our values. While I have little sympathy with religious fundamentalists, blindly allowing scientific procedures “just because we can” is at least as bad as slavishly following any outdated faith. Our use of science has become quite powerful, and has drastic consequences for our world. These consequences should be considered fully. I do agree that there are politicians and religious “authorities” (same thing, I know…) who look to score cheap political points (as there usually are on both sides of any issue), but this does not negate the rational means to object to this award.
I don’t understand how his work helped the human race move forwards. There are 6.6 billion people doing lots of damage to this crowded planet, and we are celebrating technology that assists in adding more? Our problem is too much reproduction, not too little. If infertile couples really want to raise kids, how about adoption? IVF benefits mostly wealthy individuals, not mankind.
I also wrote a post on this:
Save straw man arguments for your own blog.
If you wandered through here more often than the light of this single post drew you – you’d know that responsible science is cogent to the many posts dedicated to that avenue of progress.
Not taking the time to correct some of your other misconceptions.
Since a straw man indicates some sort of distortion of your argument, perhaps you could clarify your position. I assumed the parts in bold were your own words and made an inference from these statements. If they were incorrect, you could explain what was inaccurate rather than offering round-about insults.
Since you suggested I look at more than a single post, I read your “what’s this blog about?” section says you discuss news that is “interesting only to a niche cadre of people who care about knowledge and how it affects the course of society’s growth.” I think my comment expresses concern about knowledge and its relation to society’s growth.
I also offered a rational argument against this particular avenue of progress. Would you care to address this argument?
Not especially. At least, not right now.
Someone else may wish to.
OK, let’s pick apart little bits and pieces of your argument. I presume they’re all included because you consider them important.
“Progressing without question”? That’s the straw man. If you don’t ask questions then you’re not a scientist. Letting the questions be decided by politics is equally unscientific.
I thought your question might arise when I posted – though in practice I’ve long supported much of what you endorse whether it be Malthusian or class-based. Questions of individual freedom contradict your position.
Cost? Here in the States, the complete IVF process = the amount you’d spend on a smallish car or less. About $18,000. Some insurances will cover that; but, not most. That doesn’t limit the procedure to the wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. Workingclass couples wishing to have kids will set priorities where children are more important than a shiny new family car.
Malthus was right. No disagreement. And every society that manages to make it to a reasonable, minimal level of education – especially when women have an equal shot at that education – comes to that conclusion on a personal level.
Jurisdiction as large as, say, Moscow became entities which weren’t producing sustaining numbers through birth replacement as far back as 30-40 years ago. It’s happening in Germany, Japan – any number of places where ideologies as backwards as most Christian and Islamic sects either have little effect or are in significant decline.
I consider that truly positive political and cultural growth in understanding.
None of that affects individual rights to live their lives as they see fit as long as they’re not actively engaged in destroying other human beings.
Yes, I include environmental and political aspects of that question. Extrapolating the quite small number of those availing themselves of IVF to be a significant threat to a world that confronts climate change and the continuing possibility of global thermonuclear war is fundamentally absurd. It’s a sense of scale.
I continue to support scientific research that helps the lives of those whose personal and cultural likes and dislikes differ from mine – even though they probably wouldn’t do the same for me. They have a right to try to live their lives.
I left all this out – although I truly considered it – because many of those who comment here and offer suggestions on topics already know my feelings – at this personal blog as well as over at what we jokingly refer to as “the big blog” where I’m senior contributing editor.
This touches tens of thousands monthly. The “big blog” reaches millions monthly. I’ve been editing “diarist” blogs for several years and I forget that some folks are just bumping into my opinions for the first time.
I think we have little disagreement – excepting, perhaps, on allowing the broadest sweep to what qualifies as legitimate research and its end uses.
I’m a long-winded cranky old geek and this actually is a brief reply. I hope it clarifies agreement and disagreement.
Thanks for taking the time. Some thoughts:
On “progress without question”/straw man: Thanks for correcting that. Science is only one part of the questioning; the technologies that science makes possible have social ramifications, and debating these in social forums is extremely important, especially as our technologies grow more powerful and have global impacts. Science as a sole arbiter of acceptable technology makes me uneasy because we are entering a time in our history when we need to be exercising restraint in our technologies.
On questions of individual freedom: Sure, individuals can be free to use this technology, but celebrating, subsidizing (for those insurance schema that do cover it, anyway), and honoring it with a Nobel Prize is another matter altogether. I simply don’t think it is a worthwhile area of pursuit in terms of benefit to humanity; in fact, it seems like its net effect will be detrimental.
The cost: $18,000 is a lot of money to most of the world, including many in North America. It will also pay the cost of international adoption. Multiplied by the 4 million or so treatments, that’s 72 billion. A lot of money which, again, could be better utilized to benefit humanity.
The numbers: Yes, 4 million is a drop in the bucket compared to the billion plus we added in the same time span. But that is still 4 million more people (who are likely to consume a lot of resources, being “First Worlders”), reducing the future carrying capacity of Earth by some small amount. It’s a “1-percenter”: small on its own, but combined with other “1-percenters” adding up to make a difference. Yes, there are other, bigger problems we need to deal with, but I think critically examining this award provides some insight into our culture and where we’re headed.
Anyway, it all adds up, to me, as undeserving of an award which supposedly honors achievements that provide “greatest benefit to mankind”.