Pandora's Baby: How the First Test Tube Babies Sparked the Reproductive Revolution

Hardcover (Print)
Used and New from Other Sellers
Used and New from Other Sellers
from $1.99
Usually ships in 1-2 business days
(Save 92%)
Other sellers (Hardcover)
  • All (25) from $1.99   
  • New (6) from $6.17   
  • Used (19) from $1.99   
Close
Sort by
Page 1 of 1
Showing All
Note: Marketplace items are not eligible for any BN.com coupons and promotions
$6.17
Seller since 2009

Feedback rating:

(2358)

Condition:

New — never opened or used in original packaging.

Like New — packaging may have been opened. A "Like New" item is suitable to give as a gift.

Very Good — may have minor signs of wear on packaging but item works perfectly and has no damage.

Good — item is in good condition but packaging may have signs of shelf wear/aging or torn packaging. All specific defects should be noted in the Comments section associated with each item.

Acceptable — item is in working order but may show signs of wear such as scratches or torn packaging. All specific defects should be noted in the Comments section associated with each item.

Used — An item that has been opened and may show signs of wear. All specific defects should be noted in the Comments section associated with each item.

Refurbished — A used item that has been renewed or updated and verified to be in proper working condition. Not necessarily completed by the original manufacturer.

New
2/6/2004 Hardcover 1 New 0618224157 Ships Within 24 Hours. Tracking Number available for all USA orders. Excellent Customer Service. Upto 15 Days 100% Money Back Gurantee. Try ... Our Fast! ! ! ! Shipping With Tracking Number. Read more Show Less

Ships from: Bensalem, PA

Usually ships in 1-2 business days

  • Canadian
  • International
  • Standard, 48 States
  • Standard (AK, HI)
  • Express, 48 States
  • Express (AK, HI)
$14.31
Seller since 2010

Feedback rating:

(917)

Condition: New
Hardcover New 0618224157 Friendly Return Policy. A+++ Customer Service!

Ships from: Philadelphia, PA

Usually ships in 1-2 business days

  • Canadian
  • International
  • Standard, 48 States
  • Standard (AK, HI)
  • Express, 48 States
  • Express (AK, HI)
$14.31
Seller since 2011

Feedback rating:

(720)

Condition: New
Hardcover New 0618224157 SERVING OUR CUSTOMERS WITH BEST PRICES. FROM A COMPANY YOU TRUST, HUGE SELECTION. RELIABLE CUSTOMER SERVICE! ! HASSLE FREE RETURN POLICY, SATISFACTION ... GURANTEED**** Read more Show Less

Ships from: Philadelphia, PA

Usually ships in 1-2 business days

  • Canadian
  • International
  • Standard, 48 States
  • Standard (AK, HI)
  • Express, 48 States
  • Express (AK, HI)
$14.31
Seller since 2013

Feedback rating:

(401)

Condition: New
Hardcover New 0618224157! ! KNOWLEDGE IS POWER! ! ENJOY OUR BEST PRICES! ! ! Ships Fast. All standard orders delivered within 5 to 12 business days.

Ships from: Southampton, PA

Usually ships in 1-2 business days

  • Canadian
  • International
  • Standard, 48 States
  • Standard (AK, HI)
  • Express, 48 States
  • Express (AK, HI)
$14.31
Seller since 2010

Feedback rating:

(686)

Condition: New
Hardcover New 0618224157! ! ! ! BEST PRICES WITH A SERVICE YOU CAN RELY! ! !

Ships from: Philadelphia, PA

Usually ships in 1-2 business days

  • Canadian
  • International
  • Standard, 48 States
  • Standard (AK, HI)
  • Express, 48 States
  • Express (AK, HI)
$14.31
Seller since 2014

Feedback rating:

(269)

Condition: New
Hardcover New 0618224157 XCITING PRICES JUST FOR YOU. Ships within 24 hours. Best customer service. 100% money back return policy.

Ships from: Bensalem, PA

Usually ships in 1-2 business days

  • Canadian
  • International
  • Standard, 48 States
  • Standard (AK, HI)
  • Express, 48 States
  • Express (AK, HI)
Page 1 of 1
Showing All
Close
Sort by

Overview

On a September morning in 1973, a hospital administrator in New York City learned of a rogue experiment in progress at his institution, and he ordered the removal from an incubator of a test tube containing a frothy mixture of human eggs and sperm. Had the experiment been allowed to continue, it might have resulted in the first human fetus created through in vitro fertilization. In Pandora’s Baby, the award-winning journalist Robin Marantz Henig tells the story of that confrontation, which ushered in a new era in reproductive technology. She takes us back to the early days of IVF, when the procedure was viewed as crackpot science and its pioneers as outsiders in the medical world. Henig lays out the ethical and political battlefield of the 1970s—a battlefield that is recreated with each new technology—and traces the sea change that has occurred in the public perception of “test tube babies.” It is a human story, of men and women grappling with the moral implications of a scientific discovery: researchers, couples yearning for babies, hospital administrators, and bioethicists. Through these people Henig brings to life the argument made most forcefully against IVF in the early days: that it was the first step down the slippery slope toward genetic engineering, designer babies, and human clones. Even though this argument is worrisome and antiprogressive, Henig says, many of its most scary prophecies seem to be coming true.
Pandora’s Baby is a compelling story from the not-so-distant past that brilliantly presents the scientific and ethical dilemmas we confront ever more starkly as germ-line engineering and human cloning become possible.

Read More Show Less

Editorial Reviews

The Washington Post
Henig's central point is that in this country, real regulation gave way to what she calls "commission ethics." Whatever else it may be, IVF technology has become a full employment program for the professional bioethicist. A million test-tube babies have been born since Louise Brown, and it sometimes seems that as many bioethicists have been produced with them, destined to convene as part of federal advisory panels and to debate, endlessly, issues on which the U.S. government may or may not act. — Liza Mundy
The New York Times
When my almost-4-year-old daughter recently asked, ''How are babies made?'' her query gave me pause for reasons beyond her relative youth. After all, procreation today is a lot more socially complicated, not to mention scientifically complex, than it used to be. Fortunately, whether you have to explain the newest facts of life or simply want to understand them yourself, you can now turn to Robin Marantz Henig's beautifully written and timely book on the way in vitro (Latin for ''in glass'') fertilization, or I.V.F., began with the tinkering of a few researchers during the l960's, and how it became widely available. — Howard Markel
Publishers Weekly
In her judicious history of the development of in vitro fertilization (IVF), NBCC finalist Henig (The Monk in the Garden) notes that many of the objections posed to IVF in the 1970s would later be used against human cloning, in particular the argument that artificial reproduction interfered in intimate processes best left to nature and that it was the first step on a "slippery slope" leading to genetic engineering and selective breeding. Ironically, because IVF was such a political hot potato, the U.S. government declined to fund research in the field, leaving it essentially unregulated except by the imperatives of a marketplace. Henig's narrative begins in the days when IVF was controversial, experimental science; she describes the work of maverick Columbia University researcher Landrum Shettles; of English doctors Robert Edwards and Patrick Steptoe, responsible for the birth of the first "test tube baby," Louise Brown, in 1978; of Howard and Georgeanna Jones, who made the East Virginia Medical School a pioneering IVF center; and of doctors and philosophers in the new field of bioethics who strove to get a grip on the moral implications of it all. Few of the more frightening predictions about IVF have come true, the author notes, but the rate of birth defects in IVF babies is much higher than in normal conceptions. We don't know where reproductive technology ultimately will take society, Henig concludes, but it's likely that "we will adapt to new discoveries the way we have so often adapted." Her level-headed book provides a welcome context for the current debate over cloning. (Feb. 6) Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information.
Library Journal
In this fascinating look at science, history, and bioethics, Henig (The Monk in the Garden: The Lost and Found Genius of Gregor Mendel) takes readers back to the 1970s, when the first in-vitro fertilization (IVF) procedure took place, introducing the desperate parents, willing scientists, and reticent public of the time. The history lesson becomes shockingly relevant when it is applied to present-day concerns about human cloning and genetic engineering. Henig postulates that the ethical concerns that give modern society pause today are the same ones that were used 30 years ago to argue against IVF, artificial insemination, and numerous other biotechnologies now considered routine. She reasons that the "slippery slope" theory (that any type of genetic engineering will lead to eugenics, deformed babies, and doctors playing God) has simply not proven true in the past and should not be used as a justification for stopping research in the future. A thought-provoking book for anyone interested in the debate surrounding human cloning, embryonic stem-cell research, and the future of biomedicine, this is highly recommended.-Elizabeth Williams, Fresno City Coll. Lib., CA Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information.
Kirkus Reviews
Thought-provoking look back at the controversy stirred up by in vitro fertilization in the 1970s, when opponents warned, with some accuracy, that the new technology was poised at the edge of a "slippery slope" down which lay even more unnatural interventions in human life. Science writer Henig (A Monk in the Garden, 2000, etc.) weaves together the story of the creation of the first test tube baby, born in England in 1978, and the failed (or foiled) American attempt at IVF, which ended with the would-be parents bringing suit against a doctor who halted the procedure by confiscating their eggs and sperm. Henig brings to life the men and women involved-infertile couples, physicians, ethicists, politicians, and activists. When the first IVF baby, Louise Brown, turned out to be perfectly normal, fears about IVF's safety vanished, demand for the procedure mushroomed, and it rapidly became commonplace. Indeed, within ten years after abruptly halting an IVF procedure, the defendant in the above lawsuit went on to become director of an IVF clinic. Because pressure from anti-abortion activists kept the US government from funding IVF research and thus setting standards, American clinics were financed by entrepreneurs and largely unregulated. Henig notes that problems have surfaced in recent years: excessive multiple births, low birth weights, and higher rates of certain birth defects. As its critics predicted, IVF research and its laboratory techniques have spawned new applications in genetic engineering, such as therapeutic cloning, in which an embryo is created through cloning and its stem cells studied for their potential in treating various diseases. Critics are again warning of direconsequences, and misconceptions abound in the popular imagination. This time, the federal government has stepped in, presidential bioethics commissions are making proposals, and Congress is considering legislation. As Henig notes, "we don't know where the story will end." A well-documented, highly accessible reminder of the ways in which medical and moral issues intersect and of the roles played by politics, science, religion, money, and the media. Agent: David Black
Read More Show Less

Product Details

  • ISBN-13: 9780618224159
  • Publisher: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
  • Publication date: 2/6/2004
  • Pages: 336
  • Product dimensions: 5.50 (w) x 8.25 (h) x 0.56 (d)

Meet the Author

Robin Marantz Henig is the author of seven books. Her most recent, The Monk in the Garden: The Lost and Found Genius of Gregor Mendel, was a finalist for the National Book Critics Circle Award.

Read More Show Less

Read an Excerpt

Prologue Monster in a Test Tube

On a cool fall morning in 1973, Doris and John Del-Zio arrived with her luggage at New York Hospital. It was a familiar routine for the Florida couple; Doris had been a patient there before.
On three earlier occasions her Manhattan infertility specialist, William Sweeney, had tried surgically to remove obstructions in Doris’s blocked fallopian tubes. The first surgery worked and Doris became pregnant, but three months along she had a miscarriage. The second and third surgeries had no effect at all. Neither did attempts at artificial insemination using her husband’s sperm, not after the first insemination, nor the second, nor the third. Month after month after disappointing month, Doris Del-Zio, then approaching thirty, got her menstrual period, and each one was a stinging rebuke. Every period taunted her—no baby, no baby, no baby—forcing her to acknowledge that she still wasn’t pregnant and probably never would be.
Maybe she and John should have just left well enough alone. Maybe God, or fate, or whatever one calls the keeper of one’s destiny, meant for Doris to be content with her ten-year-old daughter, Tammy, the child of her first marriage, and with her two college-age stepdaughters, Denise and Debbie, who lived with John’s ex-wife.
Maybe it was enough to have a beautiful home in Fort Lauderdale and an adoring husband, a professional man—a dentist—who had adopted Tammy and loved her as though she were his own. But Doris wanted to have John’s baby, and she was ready to do almost anything to make that happen.
“Isn’t there something else you can do?” Doris asked Sweeney after her third failed surgery. She was a pretty woman with brunette hair swept into a lacquered flip, and her dark eyes were sad. “They can put a man on the moon; isn’t there some way scientists can figure out how to help me have a child?” Well, yes, Sweeney conceded, a little reluctantly because of Doris’s long history of infertility surgery; there was one more thing they could try. It had never been done in humans before, only in lab mice and rabbits. But if Doris was willing, he could try a new method, in vitro fertilization, or IVF, which would bypass her clogged tubes altogether. The few journalists who had written about the procedure were calling it the creation of test tube babies.
If the Del-Zios consented—and Doris took barely ten minutes to decide that this was her last, best hope—Sweeney said he would surgically remove a few of Doris’s eggs and, with a collaborator who had done such things before, fertilize them with John’s sperm in a glass test tube (in vitro is Latin for “in glass”). If one of the sperm fertilized one of the eggs, the resulting zygote—the scientific term for a fertilized egg—would be placed in an incubator at body temperature for three or four days and allowed to grow. The single cell would become two, the two would become four, the four eight, the eight sixteen, and the sixteen thirty-two. It would take about three days for the zygote to grow into the thirty-two-cell ball known as a morula and another day or so to grow into a blastocyst, a fluid-filled sphere made up of a few hundred cells. Even though it would still be smaller across than the width of an eyelash, the blastocyst would now be ready to implant itself in the uterine wall. According to the plan, then, Sweeney would have Doris return to the operating room four days after her eggs had been harvested, to introduce the minuscule blastocyst into her uterus at about the same time nature would have done so had it been given the chance. Her body, he hoped, could take it from there.
The logistics of the undertaking were tricky, made even trickier by geography. Doris’s eggs would be removed at New York Hospital, an affiliate of Cornell Medical School on East 68th Street on Manhattan’s Upper East Side. But Sweeney believed that the only man in New York with the experience, the interest, and the nerve to try to fertilize those eggs in vitro was a physician named Landrum B.
Shettles, who worked at Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center on West 168th Street and Broadway, one hundred blocks north and on the opposite side of the city, in Washington Heights. That was where the fertilization would have to take place.
By the time Doris checked into New York Hospital to attempt IVF, she had been taking fertility drugs for more than six months to pump up the activity of her ovaries. Sweeney met with her and John to discuss the procedure and to have them read and sign all the consent forrms. In addition to the usual forms, Sweeney handed the couple a one-page document that seemed almost improvised, so casual was its tone, so lacking in standard legalese: “Of our own free will and volition and with full knowledge of in vitro fertilizatiiiiion, . . . [we] hereby authorize Dr. William J. Sweeney to perform a laparotomy with embryo transplant and any other operation upon Mrs. Doris Del-Zio, and to employ any assistance as he may desire to assist him. We understand that there is no guarantee or assurance that a pregnancy could result. We understand that there is the possibility of complications of pregnancy and of childbirth and delivery, or the birth of an abnormal infant or infants, or undesirable tendencies or other adverse consequences.” The IVF consent form, the first of its kind used in New York—indeed, possibly the first of its kind used anywhere in the world—was dated September 11, 1973. It was typed on a manual typewriter with a smudgy black ribbon, signed by Doris in back-sloping handwriting with a black fine- point pen and by John in bigger, bolder script in blue.
On September 12, a Wednesday, Sweeney came in to the eighth- floor operating room where he had encountered Doris so many times before, made a new incision in her abdomen, and used a syringe to draw out from her ovaries what is known as follicular fluid. In a woman who has been taking fertility drugs, these ovarian secretions usually contain at least a few eggs.
Sweeney collected about one cubic centimeter of fluid, which he divided between two test tubes, adding some tissue scraped from the fallopian tubes for nourishment. Then he phoned Landrum Shettles at Presbyterian Hospital to tell him the eggs were on their way.
It was John Del-Zio’s job to get them there. Nestling his wife’s eggs inside his jacket pocket, safe in two corked test tubes swaddled in bubble wrap, he took the elevator down to the York Avenue exit. Then Del- Zio, a good-natured man with a reedy voice, thinning black hair, and the looks of Phil Silvers on the Sergeant Bilko television show, began the journey that he and his wife hoped would lead to the world’s first test tube baby.
The Del-Zios may have thought they were just trying to make a baby, but in truth they were also making history. And, finding themselves in the swirl of an epoch-defining vortex, they were about to come face to face with their own true selves: part courage, part vanity; part selflessness, part greed.
But John Del-Zio did not know that yet.
All he knew was that he had to get over to the West Side and up to Washington Heights. So he stood in the morning chill, peered at the traffic going north on York Avenue, and hailed a cab.

The enterprise the Del-Zios were embarked upon, in vitro fertilization, carried a slightly sinister overtone in September 1973, some- what like the back- alley connotations of abortion before the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, just eight months earlier.
Within a few short years, spurred mostly by scientists’ ability to bring into the world test tube babies who were perfectly beautiful, normal-looking in every way, society’s view would begin to change. The change was subtle, a cultural and intellectual shift so gradual as to be almost imperceptible to those living through it. But it added up to something radical indeed. A graphic demonstration of this evolution can be seen in the story of the Del-Zios, their physicians, William Sweeney and Landrum Shettles, and Raymond Vande Wiele, the chairman of Shettles’s department, whose attitude toward IVF underwent a dramatic reversal over the course of a single decade. This book is about that transformation, the people who struggled through it, and the regulatory mechanisms that society put in place during that tumultuous time—mechanisms that are still in place today to guide us through our next adventures in reproductive technology.
It’s an American story, even though early IVF is often associated with England, where the world’s first test tube baby—Louise Brown, billed as “the Baby of the Century,” her doctors hailed as heroes—was born in 1978. But the American IVF attempt involving the Del- Zios, Shettles, and Vande Wiele, which began five years earlier, reveals, perhaps better than the more familiar British story, what can happen when society faces a new and frightening technology: how it is greeted first with resistance and expectations of the worst, then with grudging permission, then with acceptance, and finally with incorporation so seamlessly into the culture that no one even notices it anymore. Because the two stories, the American and the British, took place concurrently, both are told here. And alongside the stories of the research itself are some larger, more perennial issues: the struggle between the drive to know and the drive to not know; the growth of the field of bioethics; the mechanisms by which new technologies are introduced and regulated; and the factors that motivate scientists, including altruism, personal bravura, economics, and lust for power.
It seems hard to believe today, when the procedure is so routine that it is usually covered by medical insurance, that IVF in 1973 was thought by some to threaten the very fabric of civilization. Marriage, fidelity, the essence of family; our sense of who we are and where we’re headed; what it means to be human, connected, normal, acceptable; ideas about love, sex, and nurturance; the willingness to yield to the inscrutable, marvelous mystery of it all. If in vitro fertilization was allowed, some said, all the stabilizing threads would unravel.
The threads were unraveling already, of course, which is probably why IVF seemed so threatening, yet another tug at the ever-loosening weave. Feminism was a major source of the fraying. In the early seventies women were rewriting their social roles, moving out of housewifery, delaying childbearing or choosing to be childless altogether, demanding access to traditionally male domains. With the feminist movement turning motherhood into an option instead of an obligation, any proposed change in the relationship between a woman and her reproductive capability was particularly fraught. The birth control pill had already separated sex from procreation; the Roe v. Wade decision had already separated pregnancy from birth; no-fault divorce laws had already separated marriage vows from forever. With all these coincident changes, what would the new reproductive technology do to our perception of children as the fruit of a loving, lifelong union?
“Marriage and the family must be abolished as institutions,” wrote Ti-Grace Atkinson, the author of Amazon Odyssey and one of the most radical feminists of the day. “And ‘love’ as an ideology to justify them must also go.” Even more than the institutions that supported it, the act of procreation itself was reassessed and found to be politically suspect. This was the era of Zero Population Growth (ZPG), when couples who had more than two children were viewed askance, thought to be wantonly gobbling up the planet’s precious gifts. To true believers, nothing less than the fate of the earth was at stake, its environment imperiled by too many people and too much technology.
Just as ZPG was making people think twice about having babies, a growing environmental movement was making them think twice about scientific advancement for its own sake.
The notion that progress almost always comes at a cost underlay one of the movement’s earliest achievements, the Environmental Impact Assessment, introduced in the National Environmental Protection Act of 1970. Good social policy, the Environmental Impact Assessment made clear, denied neither the progress nor the cost but sought to balance the two in a morally responsible way.
Comfortable conventions were suddenly open to reevaluation, too. The antiwar movement, which helped lead to America’s humiliating withdrawal from Vietnam in 1973, provided a new matrix for social cynicism and the belief that the government sometimes makes grave mistakes. The government’s fallibility was reinforced when the Watergate scandal erupted on national television. The daily congressional hearings turned the summer of 1973 into an object lesson in how long, and how destructive, can be the shadow cast by a single too-powerful man.
In that same year the vice president resigned in ignominy over charges of graft and tax evasion; a group of enraged Native Americans laid siege for three months to a tiny South Dakota town; and an Arab oil embargo quadrupled gas prices and made Americans question their dependence on foreign oil. Into this bubbling mess of social change came scientists who wanted to create life in the laboratory.
No wonder it looked like such a dangerous idea.

No one but the gods should tamper with the natural order of things. That, at least, is the moral of the parables that have been handed down for millennia, designed to quell humankind’s unpredictable, irrepressible, sometimes foolhardy impulses to twist nature according to its own whims. The folly of such actions has been the point of myths and folk tales dating back to the ancient Greeks, who told the story of Prometheus to show that any attempt by a mere mortal to create life—or, more blasphemous still, to conjure a thinking, feeling, independent organism—can lead only to ruin.
Prometheus was a Titan, not a god, but the gods adored him. During the time when all the earth’s creatures were being made, Zeus gave Prometheus a special task: to create Man. Prometheus took great pride in Man—some might say too much pride, the kind the Greeks called hubris. He wanted to endow his creation with a special gift, something unique to Man, something more valuable than the gifts of flight, or strength, or speed, or camouflage, which had already been bestowed upon earth’s other creatures. Prometheus decided to give Man a tool that the gods alone possessed, which would enable him to fashion other tools, to provide himself with clothing, shelter, and food. He decided to give Man the gift of fire.
Prometheus stole the fire from Mount Olympus in the dead of night and carried it to earth, nestled carefully in the crook of his arm. When Zeus saw the flickering light of the flames, he knew what Prometheus had done. He concocted a brutal punishment: he had Prometheus lashed to a rock at the top of the Caucasus Mountains, and directed a vulture to tear ceaselessly at his liver. The Titan’s agony never ended. The vulture was forever hungry, and every night Prometheus’s liver regenerated, ready to become the next morning’s meal.
The mythic hero’s suffering inspired much poetry, such as Lord Byron’s “Prometheus” of 1816. In that year Byron made an excursion to the French Alps with Percy Bysshe Shelley and Shelley’s teenage mistress. Shelley at the time was a married man, but a few months later he became a widower when his jilted wife drowned herself in the Serpentine River. He then married his young lover, Mary Godwin, who became known as Mary Shelley.
During that trip to the Alps the weather was bad, and Byron proposed that he, Shelley, and Mary pass the time writing ghost stories. Mary, much less accomplished than the two men, was at first struck nearly dumb by the idea. But the story she put together, about a scientist she called “the modern Prometheus,” eventually became the novel Frankenstein, a book whose impact far outlasted that of the ghost stories concocted by Byron and Shelley.
Byron’s ode addressed Prometheus directly, extolling his bravery in the face of injustice.

Thy godlike crime was to be kind; To render with thy precepts less The sum of human wretchedness, And strengthen man with his own mind.

Prometheus’s transgression was to provide such a powerful tool, one that would “strengthen man with his own mind.” Fire was, like knowledge, a double-edged gift, with the capacity for both creation and destruction. So it is with our most potent scientific discoveries. The more wonderful the accomplishments that are made possible by science, the more potentially terrible they are as well.
When the gods looked at Prometheus and Man, they saw what they themselves had wrought: the fierce attachment that inevitably grows between creator and creation. What if Man, with toolmaking and other capabilities of fire at his disposal, developed a stronger allegiance to Prometheus than to the gods? Once the ability to enhance life was bestowed on mere mortals, how could anyone maintain order or decency or restraint?

The Promethean trick of creating life is the essence of in vitro fertilization. But it entwines two extremes of life: on the one hand, life at its most fragile and natural, involving acts of love and touch and sex and generation, and, on the other hand, life at its most contrived, with surgical interventions, microscopic examinations, and lab cultures, turning the creation of a baby into a matter of technology rather than nature. In the early days of IVF, before it became a focus of widespread public attention, the debate was mostly about science: whether human sex cells and embryos could be grown successfully in a petri dish; whether fertilizing them there would lead to gross abnormalities; whether more animal research should be done before starting work on humans. But the debate soon took on a more philosophical tone. Some people argued that a human embryo, even a single- celled zygote, deserved the same respect due a human being—not because the zygote was a person, really, but because it was a potential person, containing all the DNA necessary to make a new and unique individual. “A blastocyst . . . is not humanly nothing,” wrote biologist Leon Kass, one of the loudest opponents of IVF in the seventies—and today a forceful critic of cloning. “It possesses a power to become what everyone will agree is a human being.” The very notion of artificial fertilization went against the teachings of many religious groups, including the Catholic Church. “Fecundation must be carried out according to nature and through reciprocal and responsible love between a man and a woman,” said the Reverend Pierfranco Pastore, a spokesman for the Vatican, shortly after Louise Brown was born in 1978. Added the Reverend Anthony Bevilacqua of the Diocese of Brooklyn: “We would not like to see the point where science dehumanizes the act of marriage.” If some of these comments sound like a rehearsal for today’s debates about human cloning, that is because there are some very real parallels. Cloning today evokes many of the same responses that IVF did thirty years ago. In fact, early opponents of IVF deliberately linked the two by predicting that human cloning was what lay at the bottom of the long and treacherous “slippery slope” down which we would inevitably tumble if IVF was allowed.
Throughout recent history, scientific and cultural changes have been subjected to the slippery slope argument. People talked about the slippery slope when the first human artificial insemination was publicized in 1909, conjuring images of selective breeding and a race of illegitimate souls. They talked about the slippery slope after the .rst heart transplant in 1967, after the first animal-to-human transplant in 1984 and, in the summer of 2001, after the first attempt to create human embryos explicitly for research. Early cases of assisted suicide stimulated talk of a slippery slope leading to wholesale killing of the aged or in.rm; early attempts at amniocentesis, of a slippery slope toward the elimination of fetuses that were trivially imperfect—or simply the “wrong” sex.
There is power in these arguments, because if we hadn’t allowed those first steps—the refinement of intrauterine diagnosis, the definition of brain death, the limbo created by the heart-lung machine—the more disturbing applications could not have come to pass.
The same can be said of IVF. Scientists first had to learn how to fertilize human eggs in the lab and how to transfer them back into the womb before they could even begin to think about the scenarios that now cause so much concern: not only cloning but also preimplantation genetic diagnosis, genetic engineering of sex cells, the creation of human/animal chimeras, the culturing of human embryos as sources of replacement parts. None of these interventions could be accomplished without first perfecting the techniques of artificial fertilization and embryo transfer.
But for all that people railed against specters of where IVF might lead, the protests had an unintended and paradoxical effect: they led to less control over IVF rather than more. Early on, opponents of the procedure thought that the best way to stop troublesome science was to keep the government from financing it, and they fought against using taxpayers’ money for research involving fetuses or embryos—which, by extension, included IVF. A succession of bioethics commissions reviewed these bans on government financing, and one by one the commissions recommended that the bans be lifted. But politicians, afraid of alienating the vocal antiabortion lobby, which took on IVF as its cause, generally did not want to underwrite such controversial research. So they tended to ignore each report and form a new commission in the hopes that it would reach a different conclusion. This became the pattern for the role of bioethicists in the regulatory minuet: sit on a commission, hold meetings, attend public hearings, write a report that says the research is ethically acceptable, have the report ignored, watch the next president or Congress convene a new commission. Repeat.
Even after the ban on fetal research was finally lifted, and then the ban on embryo research, the government still refused to sponsor IVF research. But the lack of federal support didn’t stop scientists from working on IVF—it just forced them to do so beneath the radar. They were thus beyond the reach of the main mechanism for oversight, which was (and still is) the federal research grant and the standards it imposes on recipients. No government grants for in vitro fertilization meant that no one was forced to adhere to any standards. But entrepreneurial scientists were doing IVF anyway, bolstered by private money from infertile couples desperate for babies of their own. Many of these scientists were honorable men and women with solid reputations and the loftiest of goals. But some were motivated by the factors that drive so many innovators, scientists included: ego, curiosity, ambition, even greed.
They were free agents who essentially did whatever they wanted and whatever the market would bear. Their privately funded efforts turned some aspects of IVF into a cowboy science driven by supply and demand.

Cloning is in many respects today’s cowboy science; cloners are the daredevils and rogues, making claims on television and at congressional hearings that are rarely backed up with genetic proof or an actual baby. Alarmed, many politicians in the United States and elsewhere have tried hard to put cloning in its place—not by refusing to fund it, as they did with IVF, but through legislation to outlaw it altogether—whether for research or for creating a baby. They want to keep human cloning from going the way of IVF, which developed at its own pace and became part of the ordinary landscape simply because it was easier to ignore a controversial new technology than to regulate it.
Cloning resembles IVF not only in the legislature but in the laboratory as well. For both IVF and cloning, the first step is to create a human zygote in culture. But though similar in terms of laboratory technique and in terms of the intention to allow infertile couples to have biological children, cloning and IVF have some crucial differences—and we misread the lessons of IVF for today’s cloning debates if we fail to see those differences.
The goal of in vitro fertilization is to mimic sexual reproduction and produce a genetically unique human being, a baby with one father and one mother. Only the locus of conception changes, after which events proceed much the way they do in a normal pregnancy. Cloning, however, disregards sexual reproduction; it mimics not the process but the end result, the human being himself. What is produced is not a new person with a unique combination of mother’s and father’s DNA but the identical twin, a genetic replica in every way, of a person who already exists.
Perhaps the biggest difference between IVF and cloning is the focus of our anxieties about them. In the 1970s the greatest fear about in vitro fertilization was that it might fail, leading to sorrow, disappointment, and possibly the birth of grotesquely abnormal babies. Today the greatest fear about cloning is that it might succeed.
In terms of the evolution of the species, cloning could have serious unintended consequences—far more consequences than “basic” IVF has had. As early as the 1940s, the British author C. S. Lewis warned that the net result of reproductive technology might well be not advancement but, perversely, a bizarre kind of petrification, the freezing of the world at the particular moment in time when the new technology was introduced. It would be like walking into a twenty-first-century home and finding an avocado- colored refrigerator and brown shag carpeting. That might have been the latest fashion when the owners made their first decorating decisions—but now, thirty years later, it all looks shabby and out-of-date. Something analogous could happen to the human species, said Lewis. Babies designed according to one era’s fashion could become, like pine-paneled rumpus rooms, something we regret when the fashions change. And an outdated genome can’t be ripped out like an old carpet.
“If any one age really attains, by eugenics and scientific education, the power to make its descendants what it pleases,” wrote Lewis in the 1943 essay “The Abolition of Man,” “all men who live after it are patients of that power. They are weaker, not stronger; for though we may have put wonderful machines in their hands we have preordained how they are to use them.” Lewis’s warning carries an important reminder: that opening some doors and not others automatically prevents us from venturing into certain rooms. But his emphasis is slightly askew. He makes it sound as though once we set off along a particular path of discovery, we continue to make decisions that cannot be undone. More often, however, the doors we close and open along the way are like swinging saloon doors; the process does not have to happen in only one direction.
Our choices have ramifications, to be sure, but the ramifications are not necessarily linear—nor are they necessarily permanent. If we seem to have enshrined the wrong fashion, we would probably have time to find ways to undo our mistake. The challenge is to achieve a balance between making reasonable choices and being so frightened of the wrong choices that we make no choices at all.

The Prometheus story has a sequel. It involves the first woman, the ancient Greek equivalent of Eve, whom the gods sent to earth in direct retribution for Prometheus’s misdeed. Her name was Pandora, meaning “all gifted.” The gods on Mount Olympus fashioned her with all the most alluring traits they could think of. Aphrodite gave her beauty; Hermes, persuasion; Apollo, his magnificent music.
When Pandora arrived on earth, she was carrying a beautiful and mysterious box. The box (some myths describe it as a jar) was a gift from the gods, who handed it to her and told her never to open it. But among Pandora’s many gifts were some distinctly human qualities—curiosity, audacity, impetuousness, cheek—at play in a fa- tally flawed combination. She defied the gods’ injunction and opened the box. In doing so, she unleashed all the terrors that had until then been unknown to Man, living as he did in a blissful, innocent paradise, and that would forever after cause him anguish and pain. These grievous sorrows, as one account of the Pandora myth put it, rushed from the box “in a black stinking cloud like pestilent insects—sickness and suffering, hatred and jealousy and greed, and all the other cruel things that freeze the heart and bring on old age.” The release of these miseries represented an end to the golden age, a coda to mankind’s idyllic childhood.
When scientists started talking, in the early 1970s, about creating a kind of Pandora’s baby, a lab-fertilized egg brought into being by human technology instead of by the gods, some observers thought again about the lessons the Greeks had tried to teach.
It seemed to boil down to a struggle between two competing impulses: the creative drive to understand nature versus the conservative drive to impose limits and maintain the status quo. This is the way frontier science has always been done, through the raucous to-ing and fro-ing of contradictory desires. The conflict between striving to know and wanting not to know has been with us since Eve tasted the apple, since Prometheus brought fire to mankind.
Would Pandora’s baby lead to something so close to what happened in the myth, people wondered, that the only responsible thing would be to make sure it was never born?
Would successful in vitro fertilization demand a reassessment of qualities so central to our humanity—our sense of doom and destiny, our understanding of who we are and where we are headed, our definitions of parents, children, love, sex, generation—that its very existence would threaten our collective soul? These questions may seem overdramatic today, unless you replace “in vitro fertilization” with “human cloning.” But in the years before the first test tube baby, these questions were asked by reasonable men and women who sincerely believed that IVF might unleash a scourge of woeful possibilities that, as with Pandora’s opening of her dreadful box, we would be better off having never seen.

Copyright © 2004 by Robin Marantz Henig.
Reprinted by permission of Houghton Mifflin Company.

Read More Show Less

Table of Contents

Contents Prologue: Monster in a Test Tube 1

Part One: Ex Ovo Omnia 1. Room Temperature 19 2. The Dance of Love 26 3. Laughingstock 56 4. Out of Control 64 5. Fits and Starts 78 6. Laboratory Ghouls 87

Part Two: The Modern Prometheus 7. Toward Happily Ever After 95 8. Baby Dreams 104 9. Science on Hold 118 10. The First One 133 11. A Baby Clone 142 12. Hang On 150

Part Three: Test Tube Death Trial 13. Fooling Mother Nature 155 14. Pandora’s Baby 170 15. Normality 173 16. Prometheus Unbound 177 17. Verdict 193

Part Four: Not Meant to Be Known 18. Right to Life 201 19. Opening Pandora’s Box 217 20. Tables Turned 229 21. From Monstrous to Mundane 233 22. Pandora’s Clone 245 23. Mixed Blessings 261

Notes 269 Selected Readings 303 Acknowledgments 308 Index 310

Read More Show Less

First Chapter

Prologue
Monster in a Test Tube

On a cool fall morning in 1973, Doris and John Del-Zio arrived with her
luggage at New York Hospital. It was a familiar routine for the Florida couple;
Doris had been a patient there before. On three earlier occasions her
Manhattan infertility specialist, William Sweeney, had tried surgically to
remove obstructions in Doris's blocked fallopian tubes. The first surgery
worked and Doris became pregnant, but three months along she had a
miscarriage. The second and third surgeries had no effect at all. Neither did
attempts at artificial insemination using her husband's sperm, not after the
first insemination, nor the second, nor the third. Month after month after
disappointing month, Doris Del-Zio, then approaching thirty, got her
menstrual period, and each one was a stinging rebuke. Every period taunted
her—no baby, no baby, no baby—forcing her to acknowledge that she still
wasn't pregnant and probably never would be.
Maybe she and John should have just left well enough alone.
Maybe God, or fate, or whatever one calls the keeper of one's destiny, meant
for Doris to be content with her ten-year-old daughter, Tammy, the child of
her first marriage, and with her two college-age stepdaughters, Denise and
Debbie, who lived with John's ex-wife. Maybe it was enough to have a
beautiful home in Fort Lauderdale and an adoring husband, a professional
man—a dentist—who had adopted Tammy and loved her as though she were
his own. But Doris wanted to have John's baby, and she was ready to do
almost anything to make that happen.
'Isn't there somethingelse you can do?' Doris asked Sweeney
after her third failed surgery. She was a pretty woman with brunette hair
swept into a lacquered flip, and her dark eyes were sad. 'They can put a man
on the moon; isn't there some way scientists can figure out how to help me
have a child?'
Well, yes, Sweeney conceded, a little reluctantly because of
Doris's long history of infertility surgery; there was one more thing they could
try. It had never been done in humans before, only in lab mice and rabbits.
But if Doris was willing, he could try a new method, in vitro fertilization, or
IVF, which would bypass her clogged tubes altogether. The few journalists
who had written about the procedure were calling it the creation of test tube
babies.
If the Del-Zios consented—and Doris took barely ten minutes to
decide that this was her last, best hope—Sweeney said he would surgically
remove a few of Doris's eggs and, with a collaborator who had done such
things before, fertilize them with John's sperm in a glass test tube (in vitro is
Latin for 'in glass'). If one of the sperm fertilized one of the eggs, the resulting
zygote—the scientific term for a fertilized egg—would be placed in an
incubator at body temperature for three or four days and allowed to grow. The
single cell would become two, the two would become four, the four eight, the
eight sixteen, and the sixteen thirty-two. It would take about three days for
the zygote to grow into the thirty-two-cell ball known as a morula and another
day or so to grow into a blastocyst, a fluid-filled sphere made up of a few
hundred cells. Even though it woul still be smaller across than the width of
an eyelash, the blastocyst would now be ready to implant itself in the uterine
wall. According to the plan, then, Sweeney would have Doris return to the
operating room four days after her eggs had been harvested, to introduce the
minuscule blastocyst into her uterus at about the same time nature would
have done so had it been given the chance. Her body, he hoped, could take it
from there.
The logistics of the undertaking were tricky, made even trickier by
geography. Doris's eggs would be removed at New York Hospital, an affiliate
of Cornell Medical School on East 68th Street on Manhattan's Upper East
Side. But Sweeney believed that the only man in New York with the
experience, the interest, and the nerve to try to fertilize those eggs in vitro
was a physician named Landrum B. Shettles, who worked at Columbia
Presbyterian Medical Center on West 168th Street and Broadway, one
hundred blocks north and on the opposite side of the city, in Washington
Heights. That was where the fertilization would have to take place.
By the time Doris checked into New York Hospital to attempt IVF,
she had been taking fertility drugs for more than six months to pump up the
activity of her ovaries. Sweeney met with her and John to discuss the
procedure and to have them read and sign all the consent forms. In addition
to the usual forms, Sweeney handed the couple a one-page document that
seemed almost improvised, so casual was its tone, so lacking in standard
legalese: 'Of our own free will and volition and with full knowledge of in vitro
fertilization, . . . [we] hereby authorize Dr. William J. Sweeney to perform a
laparotomy with embryo transplant and any other operation upon Mrs. Doris
Del-Zio, and to employ any assistance as he may desire to assist him. We
understand that there is no guarantee or assurance that a pregnancy could
result. We understand that there is the possibility of complications of
pregnancy and of childbirth and delivery, or the birth of an abnormal infant or
infants, or undesirable tendencies or other adverse consequences.'
The IVF consent form, the first of its kind used in New York—
indeed, possibly the first of its kind used anywhere in the world— was dated
September 11, 1973. It was typed on a manual typewriter with a smudgy
black ribbon, signed by Doris in back-sloping handwriting with a black fine-
point pen and by John in bigger, bolder script in blue.
On September 12, a Wednesday, Sweeney came in to the eighth-
floor operating room where he had encountered Doris so many times before,
made a new incision in her abdomen, and used a syringe to draw out from
her ovaries what is known as follicular fluid. In a woman who has been taking
fertility drugs, these ovarian secretions usually contain at least a few eggs.
Sweeney collected about one cubic centimeter of fluid, which he
divided between two test tubes, adding some tissue scraped from the
fallopian tubes for nourishment. Then he phoned Landrum Shettles at
Presbyterian Hospital to tell him the eggs were on their way.
It was John Del-Zio's job to get them there. Nestling his wife's
eggs inside his jacket pocket, safe in two corked test tubes swaddled in
bubble wrap, he took the elevator down York Avenue exit. Then Del-
Zio, a good-natured man with a reedy voice, thinning black hair, and the looks
of Phil Silvers on the Sergeant Bilko television show, began the journey that
he and his wife hoped would lead to the world's first test tube baby.
The Del-Zios may have thought they were just trying to make a
baby, but in truth they were also making history. And, finding themselves in
the swirl of an epoch-defining vortex, they were about to come face to face
with their own true selves: part courage, part vanity; part selflessness, part
greed.
But John Del-Zio did not know that yet. All he knew was that he
had to get over to the West Side and up to Washington Heights. So he stood
in the morning chill, peered at the traffic going north on York Avenue, and
hailed a cab.

The enterprise the Del-Zios were embarked upon, in vitro fertilization, carried
a slightly sinister overtone in September 1973, some- what like the back-
alley connotations of abortion before the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade
decision, just eight months earlier. Within a few short years, spurred mostly
by scientists' ability to bring into the world test tube babies who were
perfectly beautiful, normal-looking in every way, society's view would begin to
change. The change was subtle, a cultural and intellectual shift so gradual as
to be almost imperceptible to those living through it. But it added up to
something radical indeed. A graphic demonstration of this evolution can be
seen in the story of the Del-Zios, their physicians, William Sweeney and
Landrum Shettles, and Raymond Vande Wiele, the chairman of Shettles's
department, attitude toward IVF underwent a dramatic reversal over
the course of a single decade. This book is about that transformation, the
people who struggled through it, and the regulatory mechanisms that society
put in place during that tumultuous time—mechanisms that are still in place
today to guide us through our next adventures in reproductive technology.
It's an American story, even though early IVF is often associated
with England, where the world's first test tube baby—Louise Brown, billed
as 'the Baby of the Century,' her doctors hailed as heroes— was born in
1978. But the American IVF attempt involving the Del- Zios, Shettles, and
Vande Wiele, which began five years earlier, reveals, perhaps better than the
more familiar British story, what can happen when society faces a new and
frightening technology: how it is greeted first with resistance and
expectations of the worst, then with grudging permission, then with
acceptance, and finally with incorporation so seamlessly into the culture that
no one even notices it anymore. Because the two stories, the American and
the British, took place concurrently, both are told here. And alongside the
stories of the research itself are some larger, more perennial issues: the
struggle between the drive to know and the drive to not know; the growth of
the field of bioethics; the mechanisms by which new technologies are
introduced and regulated; and the factors that motivate scientists, including
altruism, personal bravura, economics, and lust for power.
It seems hard to believe today, when the procedure is so routine
that it is usually covered by medic insurance, that IVF in 1973 was thought
by some to threaten the very fabric of civilization. Marriage, fidelity, the
essence of family; our sense of who we are and where we're headed; what it
means to be human, connected, normal, acceptable; ideas about love, sex,
and nurturance; the willingness to yield to the inscrutable, marvelous mystery
of it all. If in vitro fertilization was allowed, some said, all the stabilizing
threads would unravel.
The threads were unraveling already, of course, which is probably
why IVF seemed so threatening, yet another tug at the ever-loosening weave.
Feminism was a major source of the fraying. In the early seventies women
were rewriting their social roles, moving out of housewifery, delaying
childbearing or choosing to be childless altogether, demanding access to
traditionally male domains. With the feminist movement turning motherhood
into an option instead of an obligation, any proposed change in the
relationship between a woman and her reproductive capability was
particularly fraught. The birth control pill had already separated sex from
procreation; the Roe v. Wade decision had already separated pregnancy from
birth; no-fault divorce laws had already separated marriage vows from forever.
With all these coincident changes, what would the new reproductive
technology do to our perception of children as the fruit of a loving, lifelong
union?
'Marriage and the family must be abolished as institutions,' wrote
Ti-Grace Atkinson, the author of Amazon Odyssey and one of the most
radical feminists of the day. 'And 'love' as an ideology to justify them must
also go.'
more than the institutions that supported it, the act of
procreation itself was reassessed and found to be politically suspect. This
was the era of Zero Population Growth (ZPG), when couples who had more
than two children were viewed askance, thought to be wantonly gobbling up
the planet's precious gifts. To true believers, nothing less than the fate of the
earth was at stake, its environment imperiled by too many people and too
much technology.
Just as ZPG was making people think twice about having babies,
a growing environmental movement was making them think twice about
scientific advancement for its own sake. The notion that progress almost
always comes at a cost underlay one of the movement's earliest
achievements, the Environmental Impact Assessment, introduced in the
National Environmental Protection Act of 1970. Good social policy, the
Environmental Impact Assessment made clear, denied neither the progress
nor the cost but sought to balance the two in a morally responsible way.
Comfortable conventions were suddenly open to reevaluation, too.
The antiwar movement, which helped lead to America's humiliating
withdrawal from Vietnam in 1973, provided a new matrix for social cynicism
and the belief that the government sometimes makes grave mistakes. The
government's fallibility was reinforced when the Watergate scandal erupted
on national television. The daily congressional hearings turned the summer of
1973 into an object lesson in how long, and how destructive, can be the
shadow cast by a single too-powerful man.
In that same year the vice president resigned in ignominy over
charges of graft and evasion; a group of enraged Native Americans laid
siege for three months to a tiny South Dakota town; and an Arab oil embargo
quadrupled gas prices and made Americans question their dependence on
foreign oil. Into this bubbling mess of social change came scientists who
wanted to create life in the laboratory. No wonder it looked like such a
dangerous idea.

No one but the gods should tamper with the natural order of things. That, at
least, is the moral of the parables that have been handed down for millennia,
designed to quell humankind's unpredictable, irrepressible, sometimes
foolhardy impulses to twist nature according to its own whims. The folly of
such actions has been the point of myths and folk tales dating back to the
ancient Greeks, who told the story of Prometheus to show that any attempt
by a mere mortal to create life—or, more blasphemous still, to conjure a
thinking, feeling, independent organism—can lead only to ruin.
Prometheus was a Titan, not a god, but the gods adored him.
During the time when all the earth's creatures were being made, Zeus gave
Prometheus a special task: to create Man. Prometheus took great pride in
Man—some might say too much pride, the kind the Greeks called hubris. He
wanted to endow his creation with a special gift, something unique to Man,
something more valuable than the gifts of flight, or strength, or speed, or
camouflage, which had already been bestowed upon earth's other creatures.
Prometheus decided to give Man a tool that the gods alone possessed,
which would enable him to fashion other tools, to provide himself with
clothing, shelter, and food. He decided to give Man the gift of fire.
Prometheus stole the fire from Mount Olympus in the dead of
night and carried it to earth, nestled carefully in the crook of his arm. When
Zeus saw the flickering light of the flames, he knew what Prometheus had
done. He concocted a brutal punishment: he had Prometheus lashed to a
rock at the top of the Caucasus Mountains, and directed a vulture to tear
ceaselessly at his liver. The Titan's agony never ended. The vulture was
forever hungry, and every night Prometheus's liver regenerated, ready to
become the next morning's meal.
The mythic hero's suffering inspired much poetry, such as Lord
Byron's 'Prometheus' of 1816. In that year Byron made an excursion to the
French Alps with Percy Bysshe Shelley and Shelley's teenage mistress.
Shelley at the time was a married man, but a few months later he became a
widower when his jilted wife drowned herself in the Serpentine River. He then
married his young lover, Mary Godwin, who became known as Mary Shelley.
During that trip to the Alps the weather was bad, and Byron
proposed that he, Shelley, and Mary pass the time writing ghost stories.
Mary, much less accomplished than the two men, was at first struck nearly
dumb by the idea. But the story she put together, about a scientist she
called 'the modern Prometheus,' eventually became the novel Frankenstein,
a book whose impact far outlasted that of the ghost stories concocted by
Byron and Shelley.
Byron's ode addressed Prometheus directly, extolling his bravery
in the face of injustice.

Thy godlike crime was to be kind;
To render with thy prece sum of human wretchedness,
And strengthen man with his own mind.

Prometheus's transgression was to provide such a powerful tool,
one that would 'strengthen man with his own mind.' Fire was, like
knowledge, a double-edged gift, with the capacity for both creation and
destruction. So it is with our most potent scientific discoveries. The more
wonderful the accomplishments that are made possible by science, the more
potentially terrible they are as well.
When the gods looked at Prometheus and Man, they saw what
they themselves had wrought: the fierce attachment that inevitably grows
between creator and creation. What if Man, with toolmaking and other
capabilities of fire at his disposal, developed a stronger allegiance to
Prometheus than to the gods? Once the ability to enhance life was bestowed
on mere mortals, how could anyone maintain order or decency or restraint?

The Promethean trick of creating life is the essence of in vitro fertilization. But
it entwines two extremes of life: on the one hand, life at its most fragile and
natural, involving acts of love and touch and sex and generation, and, on the
other hand, life at its most contrived, with surgical interventions, microscopic
examinations, and lab cultures, turning the creation of a baby into a matter of
technology rather than nature. In the early days of IVF, before it became a
focus of widespread public attention, the debate was mostly about science:
whether human sex cells and embryos could be grown successfully in a petri
dish; whether fertilizing them there would lead to gross abnormalities;
whether more animal research should be done before starting work on
humans. But the debate soon took on a more philosophical tone. Some
people argued that a human embryo, even a single- celled zygote, deserved
the same respect due a human being— not because the zygote was a
person, really, but because it was a potential person, containing all the DNA
necessary to make a new and unique individual. 'A blastocyst . . . is not
humanly nothing,' wrote biologist Leon Kass, one of the loudest opponents of
IVF in the seventies —and today a forceful critic of cloning. 'It possesses a
power to become what everyone will agree is a human being.'
The very notion of artificial fertilization went against the teachings
of many religious groups, including the Catholic Church. 'Fecundation must
be carried out according to nature and through reciprocal and responsible
love between a man and a woman,' said the Reverend Pierfranco Pastore, a
spokesman for the Vatican, shortly after Louise Brown was born in 1978.
Added the Reverend Anthony Bevilacqua of the Diocese of Brooklyn: 'We
would not like to see the point where science dehumanizes the act of
marriage.'
If some of these comments sound like a rehearsal for today's
debates about human cloning, that is because there are some very real
parallels. Cloning today evokes many of the same responses that IVF did
thirty years ago. In fact, early opponents of IVF deliberately linked the two by
predicting that human cloning was what lay at the bottom of the long and
treacherous 'slippery slope' down which we would inevitably tumble if IVF
was allowed.
Throughout recent history, scientific and cultural chang have
been subjected to the slippery slope argument. People talked about the
slippery slope when the first human artificial insemination was publicized in
1909, conjuring images of selective breeding and a race of illegitimate souls.
They talked about the slippery slope after the .rst heart transplant in 1967,
after the first animal-to-human transplant in 1984 and, in the summer of 2001,
after the first attempt to create human embryos explicitly for research. Early
cases of assisted suicide stimulated talk of a slippery slope leading to
wholesale killing of the aged or in.rm; early attempts at amniocentesis, of a
slippery slope toward the elimination of fetuses that were trivially imperfect —
or simply the 'wrong' sex.
There is power in these arguments, because if we hadn't allowed
those first steps—the refinement of intrauterine diagnosis, the definition of
brain death, the limbo created by the heart-lung machine—the more
disturbing applications could not have come to pass.
The same can be said of IVF. Scientists first had to learn how to
fertilize human eggs in the lab and how to transfer them back into the womb
before they could even begin to think about the scenarios that now cause so
much concern: not only cloning but also preimplantation genetic diagnosis,
genetic engineering of sex cells, the creation of human/animal chimeras, the
culturing of human embryos as sources of replacement parts. None of these
interventions could be accomplished without first perfecting the techniques of
artificial fertilization and embryo transfer.
But for all that people railed against s might
lead, the protests had an unintended and paradoxical effect: they led to less
control over IVF rather than more. Early on, opponents of the procedure
thought that the best way to stop troublesome science was to keep the
government from financing it, and they fought against using taxpayers' money
for research involving fetuses or embryos— which, by extension, included
IVF. A succession of bioethics commissions reviewed these bans on
government financing, and one by one the commissions recommended that
the bans be lifted. But politicians, afraid of alienating the vocal antiabortion
lobby, which took on IVF as its cause, generally did not want to underwrite
such controversial research. So they tended to ignore each report and form a
new commission in the hopes that it would reach a different conclusion. This
became the pattern for the role of bioethicists in the regulatory minuet: sit on
a commission, hold meetings, attend public hearings, write a report that says
the research is ethically acceptable, have the report ignored, watch the next
president or Congress convene a new commission. Repeat.
Even after the ban on fetal research was finally lifted, and then the
ban on embryo research, the government still refused to sponsor IVF
research. But the lack of federal support didn't stop scientists from working
on IVF—it just forced them to do so beneath the radar. They were thus
beyond the reach of the main mechanism for oversight, which was (and still
is) the federal research grant and the standards it imposes on recipients. No
government grants for in vitro fertilization meant that no one was forced to
adhere to any standards. But entrepreneurial scientists were doing IVF
anyway, bolstered by private money from infertile couples desperate for
babies of their own. Many of these scientists were honorable men and
women with solid reputations and the loftiest of goals. But some were
motivated by the factors that drive so many innovators, scientists included:
ego, curiosity, ambition, even greed. They were free agents who essentially
did whatever they wanted and whatever the market would bear. Their privately
funded efforts turned some aspects of IVF into a cowboy science driven by
supply and demand.

Cloning is in many respects today's cowboy science; cloners are the
daredevils and rogues, making claims on television and at congressional
hearings that are rarely backed up with genetic proof or an actual baby.
Alarmed, many politicians in the United States and elsewhere have tried hard
to put cloning in its place—not by refusing to fund it, as they did with IVF, but
through legislation to outlaw it altogether —whether for research or for
creating a baby. They want to keep human cloning from going the way of IVF,
which developed at its own pace and became part of the ordinary landscape
simply because it was easier to ignore a controversial new technology than
to regulate it.
Cloning resembles IVF not only in the legislature but in the
laboratory as well. For both IVF and cloning, the first step is to create a
human zygote in culture. But though similar in terms of laboratory technique
and in terms of the intention to allow infertile couples to have biological
children, cloning and have some crucial differences —and we misread
the lessons of IVF for today's cloning debates if we fail to see those
differences.
The goal of in vitro fertilization is to mimic sexual reproduction and
produce a genetically unique human being, a baby with one father and one
mother. Only the locus of conception changes, after which events proceed
much the way they do in a normal pregnancy. Cloning, however, disregards
sexual reproduction; it mimics not the process but the end result, the human
being himself. What is produced is not a new person with a unique
combination of mother's and father's DNA but the identical twin, a genetic
replica in every way, of a person who already exists.
Perhaps the biggest difference between IVF and cloning is the
focus of our anxieties about them. In the 1970s the greatest fear about in vitro
fertilization was that it might fail, leading to sorrow, disappointment, and
possibly the birth of grotesquely abnormal babies. Today the greatest fear
about cloning is that it might succeed.
In terms of the evolution of the species, cloning could have serious
unintended consequences—far more consequences than 'basic' IVF has
had. As early as the 1940s, the British author C. S. Lewis warned that the
net result of reproductive technology might well be not advancement but,
perversely, a bizarre kind of petrification, the freezing of the world at the
particular moment in time when the new technology was introduced. It would
be like walking into a twenty-first-century home and finding an avocado-
colored refrigerator and brown shag carpeting. That might have been the < fashion when the owners made their first decorating decisions—but
now, thirty years later, it all looks shabby and out-of-date. Something
analogous could happen to the human species, said Lewis. Babies designed
according to one era's fashion could become, like pine-paneled rumpus
rooms, something we regret when the fashions change. And an outdated
genome can't be ripped out like an old carpet.
'If any one age really attains, by eugenics and scientific
education, the power to make its descendants what it pleases,' wrote Lewis
in the 1943 essay 'The Abolition of Man,' 'all men who live after it are
patients of that power. They are weaker, not stronger; for though we may
have put wonderful machines in their hands we have preordained how they
are to use them.'
Lewis's warning carries an important reminder: that opening some
doors and not others automatically prevents us from venturing into certain
rooms. But his emphasis is slightly askew. He makes it sound as though
once we set off along a particular path of discovery, we continue to make
decisions that cannot be undone. More often, however, the doors we close
and open along the way are like swinging saloon doors; the process does not
have to happen in only one direction. Our choices have ramifications, to be
sure, but the ramifications are not necessarily linear—nor are they
necessarily permanent. If we seem to have enshrined the wrong fashion, we
would probably have time to find ways to undo our mistake. The challenge is
to achieve a balance between making reasonable choices and being so
frightened of the wrong choices that we make no ch all.

The Prometheus story has a sequel. It involves the first woman, the ancient
Greek equivalent of Eve, whom the gods sent to earth in direct retribution for
Prometheus's misdeed. Her name was Pandora, meaning 'all gifted.' The
gods on Mount Olympus fashioned her with all the most alluring traits they
could think of. Aphrodite gave her beauty; Hermes, persuasion; Apollo, his
magnificent music.
When Pandora arrived on earth, she was carrying a beautiful and
mysterious box. The box (some myths describe it as a jar) was a gift from
the gods, who handed it to her and told her never to open it. But among
Pandora's many gifts were some distinctly human qualities —curiosity,
audacity, impetuousness, cheek—at play in a fa- tally flawed combination.
She defied the gods' injunction and opened the box. In doing so, she
unleashed all the terrors that had until then been unknown to Man, living as
he did in a blissful, innocent paradise, and that would forever after cause him
anguish and pain. These grievous sorrows, as one account of the Pandora
myth put it, rushed from the box 'in a black stinking cloud like pestilent
insects—sickness and suffering, hatred and jealousy and greed, and all the
other cruel things that freeze the heart and bring on old age.' The release of
these miseries represented an end to the golden age, a coda to mankind's
idyllic childhood.
When scientists started talking, in the early 1970s, about creating
a kind of Pandora's baby, a lab-fertilized egg brought into being by human
technology instead of by the gods, some observers thought again about the
lessons the Greeks had tried to teach. It seemed to boil down to a struggle
between two competing impulses: the creative drive to understand nature
versus the conservative drive to impose limits and maintain the status quo.
This is the way frontier science has always been done, through the raucous
to-ing and fro-ing of contradictory desires. The conflict between striving to
know and wanting not to know has been with us since Eve tasted the apple,
since Prometheus brought fire to mankind.
Would Pandora's baby lead to something so close to what
happened in the myth, people wondered, that the only responsible thing
would be to make sure it was never born? Would successful in vitro
fertilization demand a reassessment of qualities so central to our humanity —
our sense of doom and destiny, our understanding of who we are and where
we are headed, our definitions of parents, children, love, sex, generation—
that its very existence would threaten our collective soul? These questions
may seem overdramatic today, unless you replace 'in vitro fertilization'
with 'human cloning.' But in the years before the first test tube baby, these
questions were asked by reasonable men and women who sincerely believed
that IVF might unleash a scourge of woeful possibilities that, as with
Pandora's opening of her dreadful box, we would be better off having never
seen.

Copyright © 2004 by Robin Marantz Henig. Reprinted by permission of
Houghton Mifflin Company.
Read More Show Less

Customer Reviews

Be the first to write a review
( 0 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star

(0)

4 Star

(0)

3 Star

(0)

2 Star

(0)

1 Star

(0)

Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Noble.com Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & Noble.com that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & Noble.com does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at BN.com or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation

Reminder:

  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & Noble.com and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Noble.com Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & Noble.com reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & Noble.com also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on BN.com. It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

 
Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously

    If you find inappropriate content, please report it to Barnes & Noble
    Why is this product inappropriate?
    Comments (optional)