Blog : Displaying 1000-1003 of 1334

The rich are different from you and me: Yes, they hire surrogates

Posted by Jesse Reynolds on December 1st, 2008

Kuczynski, baby, and baby nurse

The cover story of last week's New York Times Sunday Magazine is the latest in a regular tradition: The first-person journalistic account of assisted reproduction. (1, 2) In this case, author and new mother Alex Kuczynski describes how, after eleven rounds of attempted in vitro fertilization, she and her husband hired a gestational surrogate. The essay addresses the issue of commercialization in a manner that is simultaneously bluntly honest and painfully naive.

Here are some details, for context: Kuczynski has been the "Critical Shopper" columnist in the Times' Style section, where she reviews $545 purses and $1500 skirts, and splits her time among a Manhattan apartment called "the world's richest apartment building," Southampton, and the ski resort town of Ketchum, Idaho. The New York gossip columns can refer to her as "La Kuczynski." She's previously written a memoir of other voluntary medical experiences: Her book Beauty Junkies used her own self-confessed addiction to cosmetic surgery as a launching pad to investigate that burgeoning industry. Her husband is a billionaire who already had six children with three previous wives. They were married by the mayor of New York. Clearly, the $300,000 or so they spent on IVF and surrogacy was not an issue.

The featured photographs in the story don't just make the class - and race - issues clear; they make them cliché. Beautiful Mother holds her new baby on her lawn in front of her exquisite Southampton summer home, while the baby's personal nurse, who is black, stands at attention. Meanwhile, the surrogate is shown barefoot and pregnant (literally) on her weathered porch as a hound lounges next to her.

Although Kuczynski admits that the surrogacy industry is aware of, but conceals, its commercial nature, she initially claims that the financial component of gestational surrogacy didn't faze her:

Still, in our experience with the surrogacy industry, no one lingered on the topic of money. We encountered the wink-nod rule: Surrogates would never say they were motivated to carry a child for another couple just for money; they were all motivated by altruism. This gentle hypocrisy allows surrogacy to take place. Without it, both sides would have to acknowledge the deep cultural revulsion against attaching a dollar figure to the creation of a human life.

In fact, charges of baby selling have long tarnished the practice of traditional surrogacy, and charges of exploiting women have lingered even as more couples opt for gestational surrogacy. We were not disturbed by the commercial aspect of surrogacy. A woman going through the risks of labor for another family clearly deserves to be paid. To me, imagining someone pregnant with the embryo produced by my egg and my husband’s sperm felt more similar to organ donation, or I guess more accurately, organ rental. That was something I could live with.

Yet she goes out of her way to pick a relatively well-off and educated prospective surrogate:

When we came across Cathy’s application, we saw that she was by far the most coherent and intelligent of the group. She wrote that she was happily married with three children. Her answers were not handwritten in the tiny allotted spaces; she had downloaded the original questionnaire and typed her responses at thoughtful length. Her attention to detail was heartening. And her computer-generated essay indicated, among other things, a certain level of competence. This gleaned morsel of information made me glad: she must live in a house with a computer and know how to use it.

In our conference call with Cathy and her husband, Mick — the vice president of marketing for a credit union — we felt immediately comfortable. They had three children, two of whom were in college. Cathy and Mick sounded compassionate and intelligent.....

But there was something else that drew me to her — the same thing that caused me to see her computer-generated essay in a different light from the other women’s hand-scrawled applications. She and her husband were college-educated. Her husband graduated from William and Mary. Her daughter Rebecca, then 20, wanted to be a journalist. They lived in a renovated mill house on a creek in a suburb of Philadelphia. They seemed, in other words, not so different from us. Later, during the election season, she and I were unaccountably pleased to learn that we were both planning to vote for Obama.

Something tells me that had Kuczynski not had the good fortune to find an Obama voter, and was forced to stoop down to a surrogate who didn't complete her application with a computer, she still would have gone through with the process. Only now, she can perhaps reassure herself that she didn't exploit an economically vulnerable woman. After all, Cathy, the surrogate (whose daughter sold her eggs to help pay for college), is "not so different from" Kuczynski.

This self-consolation is hollow. If Cathy were infertile, would she be able to hire a surrogate? If Kuczynski were fertile, would she ever consider being one?

P.S.: For some additional thoughts, read the readers' comments at the Times' site.

P.P.S.: Read Thomas Frank's December 10 Wall Street Journal column on the essay.

Previously on Biopolitical Times:

Obama and the future of stem cell politics

Posted by Marcy Darnovsky on November 26th, 2008

[ Cross-posted from "What's new in life sciences research" at ScienceBlogs, where Marcy Darnovsky will be posting over the next month. ]

Remember stem cell politics during the 2004 presidential campaign?

VP candidate John Edwards told a crowd that embryonic stem cell research would allow people like Christopher Reeve "to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again." In a speech at the Democratic convention, Ron Reagan Jr. predicted that cloning-based stem cell research would produce for each of us a "personal biological repair kit standing by at the hospital." Meanwhile, opponents of deriving stem cells from embryos lost no opportunity to proclaim equally miraculous powers for "adult" stem cells.

What a difference four years make.

The stem cell world has been reshaped, both in terms of the science and politics. There are no longer only two types of stem cells - adult stem cells that don't require embryos, and embryonic stem cells that have stirred all the controversy. Over the past year, researchers around the world have developed and refined the derivation and control of a third type of stem cells - "induced pluripotent stem cells" or "reprogrammed cells." These are produced from ordinary body cells, without using embryos or women's eggs. (The eggs are used in efforts - so far unsuccessful - to derive stem cells from cloned embryos. More about this in a subsequent post.)

The political changes have been as dramatic. Stem cells figured little in the 2008 campaign, with the exception of a Michigan ballot measure. Both presidential candidates supported embryonic stem cell research that use embryos created but not used for reproductive purposes, and President-elect Obama has made it clear that he will lift the Bush administration's restrictions on federal funding of it.

What's likely to happen after that?

The shift in policy will be valuable for both obvious and not-so-obvious reason. It will normalize the funding of stem cell research, putting it on a level playing field with other promising medical investigations and experiments. It will help move stem cell research away from its status as a hot-button partisan wedge issue. Hopefully, it will open discussion of stem cells to issues other than the status of human embryos.

A new chapter in the politics of stem cells will be good for science, and good for efforts to bring democratic accountability to the development of all genetic, reproductive and biomedical technologies. Here are some of the things we need:

  • Researchers and research advocates (as well as bloggers and journalists) should take a sober look at the exaggeration and hype that have shaped the field over the past decade. They should re-commit themselves to responsible descriptions of their work's prospects, and refrain from exaggerating the likelihood and imminence of breakthroughs, treatments and cures.
  • Democratic Congress members preparing stem cell legislation have indicated that their bills will include provisions for regulation and oversight of the research. Let's hope the structures and rules they propose are effective and transparent, and applicable to research whether it is publicly or privately funded.
  • Lawmakers and research review boards need to pay special attention to safeguarding participants in clinical trials, whether of adult stem cells, embryonic stem cells or (further off) reprogrammed stem cells. Because stem cell researchers, like other biomedical scientists, are increasingly involved in commercial enterprises, conflicts between patient well-being and research advancement are not uncommon. Overheated expectations about stem cells further raise the stakes.

And one more thing: All of us should think carefully about the lessons of the stem cell wars for future decisions about human biotechnologies. I'm definitely not of the mind that we should take politics out of science - that's not possible, and winds up hiding rather than taming partisan motives, commercial prerogatives, and special interests.

The stem cell wars have provided a great example of how not to conduct the politics of science. Our job now is to work out what a democratic politics of human biotechnology would look like.

Any ideas?

Silencing Science

Posted by Jesse Reynolds on November 25th, 2008

A biotech company is suing a researcher at the National Institutes of Health for defamation after he published results casting one of the company's products in a unflattering light. In April, the NIH's Charles Natanson reported in an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association that five blood substitutes are related to a 30% increase in mortality. Biopure, a company that makes one of the studied substitutes, first asked Natanson to retract his paper, citing flawed methodology. After he declined, Biopure filed suit, accusing him of making "false and defamatory statements."

I was initially frustrated by Biopure's lawsuit and what it may represent. While I don't equate science with constitutionally protected free speech, the open publication of unbiased results is necessary both for technological progress and for protecting people from potential current hazards. Such a lawsuit, if successful or even if Natanson settles out of court, could create an unprecedented and dangerous chilling effect. Unfortunately, this seems likes a logical outcome of three decades of the commercialization of the life sciences.

Yet after I read more details, I became at least partially sympathetic to Biopure's complaint. Most importantly, Natanson had failed to disclose his personal financial interest in a method which could reduce the negative side effects of blood substitutes. It's not out of the question that the commercialization of his own work had biased Natanson, consciously or not. Ideally, the court will be able to sort this.

HT to Integrity in Science Watch.

Previously on Biopolitical Times:

Doing the right thing with DNA forensics

Posted by Osagie Obasagie on November 21st, 2008

Defense attorneys, such as those at the Innocence Project, have been using DNA testing for years to exonerate those who have been wrongly convicted. But, a recent Wall Street Journal article highlights the efforts of Craig Watkins, a Dallas District attorney, who is reviewing old cases and using DNA tests to set the record straight. So far, this has led to six men being cleared of heinous crimes such as murder and rape.

Politics and a lack of resources often play a large role in preventing the thorough review of cases. District Attorneys make their careers by putting people in prison, not setting them free. And dwindling funding often means that crime labs do not have the staff or resources to keep up with current cases let alone review older ones. But, it is certainly heartening to see that at least one D.A. is doing whatever he can to use DNA technologies not only as a tool for conviction, but also as a opportunity for redemption. As Watkins notes, "We have the constitutional obligation to seek justice."

Previously on Biopolitical Times:

Displaying 1000-1003 of 1334  
< Prev  Next >> 
« First Page Last Page » 
« Show Complete List » 



home | overview | blog | publications | about us | donate | newsletter | press room | privacy policy

CGS • 1120 University Ave, Suite 100, Berkeley, CA 94702 USA • • (p) 1.510.625.0819 • (F) 1.510.665.8760