Robert G. Edwards was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine on Oct. 4 for the development of human in vitro fertilization, also known as IVF. Edwards overcame immense technical challenges and with the help of his now deceased partner Patrick Steptoe, the pair saw their work come to life with the birth of the first in vitro baby, Louise Brown, in 1978.
In the decades since its discovery, IVF has become an accepted treatment for infertility and has been responsible for about 4 million births worldwide.
However, in the years following Louise Brown’s birth, critics decried IVF as “playing God.” Similar criticisms have been leveled against several advances in biology and medicine in the past few decades, including genetic engineering and cloning. As a biological engineering major, I am obviously not swayed by these arguments, but I ironically find myself opposing IVF after considering a viewpoint many believe to be at odds with God — Darwinism.
Before continuing, I should clear up the difference between Darwinism and social Darwinism because many people confuse the two.
Darwinism is the theory of natural selection and basically says organisms that outcompete their neighbors are more likely to survive and pass their genes on than their inferior counterparts. This natural process rewards genetic traits that encourage successful reproduction and survival while removing disadvantageous traits from a species’ gene pool. Darwinism is a scientific theory, not an ideology.
On the other hand, social Darwinism is a 19th century ideology based on the phrase “survival of the fittest,” which was used to justify the subjugation of “inferior” races and the demonization of the poor in capitalist societies.
In the modern world, a Social Darwinist view would not only disapprove of IVF, but also of treating a genetic disorder like cystic fibrosis because in nature, infertile people do not reproduce and cystic fibrosis sufferers die young.
A Darwinian view doesn’t determine whether someone should live or die, but it does tell us what will happen if damaged genes are passed on. According to a Darwinian, CF patients should receive any treatment available to improve their quality of life, but they should not reproduce because they could inflict their disease on their children.
With regards to IVF, many causes of infertility are genetic. IVF is used to treat only the most severe cases of infertility, but it is possible that IVF children will inherit their parent’s infertility if it is hereditary.
The most important distinction between a disease like CF and infertility is that infertile couples have a perfectly good, non-medical option to “cure” their affliction: adoption. Most couples with the kind of disposable income to pay for IVF would be approved for adoption in a second, and most couples denied for adoption shouldn’t be having IVF anyway.
Although fertility clinics usually advertise IVF at a cost of between $9,000 and $15,000, the combined costs of procedures, complications and lost productivity can significantly increase the total cost. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, a single pregnancy through IVF can cost from $66,667 to $114,286, depending on how many cycles of treatment are required before success and the incidence of complications.
Even though I oppose the use of IVF in treating infertility, I believe Edwards unquestionably deserves this award. In the end it’s hard to argue with a discovery responsible for the creation of millions of lives and the development of dozens of scientific tools and procedures modern scientists rely on to make the world a better place.
The Darwinian urge to see our genes passed on is to blame for a world where parents saddle their children with potential infertility and pay more than $100,000 just to know their kids really are a part of the family.
Andrew Shockey is a 20-year-old biological engineering sophomore from Baton Rouge. Follow him on Twitter @TDR_Ashockey.
—-
Contact Andrew Shockey at [email protected]