Experts from the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine are advising President Obama's Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to approve mitochondrial DNA replacement techniques (MRTs) to help about a hundred Americans give birth to creatures fabricated in a laboratory using genetic material from three unrelated people. The experts promise that no scientists in the future will misuse the techniques to "play god" and create any Frankenstein babies.
For background, read President Obama's FDA Pushes 3-parent Babies
Click headlines below to read previous articles:
UK Government OKs Frankenstein Designer Babies
Secret Designer Babies via Gene-editing Science
Scientists Create Artificial Human Eggs and Sperm
Genetic Scientists Worshiped as Creators of Life
Also read Unborn Must Die so Others Can Live, Scientists Say
-- From "Three-parent babies are ok, experts say" by NBC News 2/4/16
Such "three-parent" babies could be a way for people with a high risk of rare, devastating genetic diseases to have healthy children that are genetically their own, the National Academy of Medicine panel said.
And at first, the panel advised, only male embryos should be made this way until it's clear that dangerous mutations would not be passed down to future generations.
The FDA asked the academy, formerly known as the Institute of Medicine, to look at the three-person embryo processes, called mitochondrial replacement techniques (MRT). These are variations of in vitro fertilization, or IVF — the method that creates so-called "test-tube babies."
MRT adds a step [to IVF]: The mother's nuclear DNA would be removed and placed into the egg cell of another woman. The father's sperm would then be used to fertilize that hybrid egg.
The new techniques would be used to prevent the transmission of certain types of diseases that occur at the mitochondrial DNA level, the experts said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Babies With Genes From 3 People Could Be Ethical, Panel Says" by Rob Stein, WBEZ-FM91.5 NPR (Chicago, IL) 2/3/16
Critics of the research, meanwhile, say the number of women who could benefit from the experiments is so small that it's not worth crossing a line that's long been considered off-limits — making genetic changes that could be passed down for generations.
"The possibility of what you could call 'mission creep' is very real," says Marcy Darnovsky, executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society, a watchdog group based in Berkeley, Calif. "People are talking about going forward not just with this but with the kind of genetic engineering that will produce outright genetically modified human beings."
Once that happens, Darnovsky says, "I think you get into a situation of where some people are genetically enhanced and other people are the regular old variety of human being. And I don't think that's a world we want to live in."
. . . The FDA email praised the "thoughtful work" of the panel and said the agency would be "reviewing" the recommendations. But it noted that the latest federal budget "prevents the FDA from using funds to review applications in which a human embryo is intentionally created or modified to include" changes that could be passed down to future generations. As a result, the email says, any such research "cannot be performed in the United States" at this time.
"I think it's a great step in the right direction," Mark Sauer, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Columbia University who is a member of one of the teams . . . "Politics as usual often gets in way of progress," Sauer said in a subsequent email. While the FDA statement would cause "undue delays" in his research, he added that he hoped it wouldn't permanently "necessarily halt the efforts."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Should scientists be allowed to change DNA to prevent genetic disease?" by Daphne Chen, Deseret News 2/3/16
"I think the field has come together to say, 'Let’s think about this together and go forward carefully,'" said Dr. Jeffrey Botkin, a professor of pediatrics and chief of medical ethics and humanities at the University of Utah.
Botkin sat on the 12-person committee that included top bioethics experts from Johns Hopkins, Caltech and Harvard.
"There's not a bright line between where this kicks over into unethical," [University of Utah, Department of Biochemistry Dr. Jared] Rutter said. "The technology that we have is expanding … more rapidly than our sophistication with thinking about how to use it."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Ethicists approve ‘3 parent’ embryos to stop diseases, but congressional ban remains" by Joel Achenbach, Washington Post 2/3/16
The committee, which was convened last year at the request of the Food and Drug Administration, concluded that it is ethically permissible to “go forward, but with caution” with mitochondrial replacement techniques (MRT), said the chairman, Jeffrey Kahn, a bioethicist at Johns Hopkins University.
But the advisory panel’s conclusions have slammed into a congressional ban: The omnibus fiscal 2016 budget bill passed by Congress late last year contained language prohibiting the government from using any funds to handle applications for experiments that genetically alter human embryos.
Thus the green light from the scientists and ethicists won't translate anytime soon into clinical applications that could potentially help families that want healthy babies, said Shoukhrat Mitalipov, a pioneer of the new technique at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, Ore.
“It seems like the FDA is disabled in this case by Congress," Mitalipov said. “At this point we’re still not clear how to proceed."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Report: It's ethical to test embryos from DNA of 3 people" by Lauran Neergaard, Medical Xpress 2/3/16
The genes that give us our hair and eye color, our height and other family traits—and some common diseases such as cancer—come from DNA in the nucleus of cells, the kind we inherit from both mom and dad.
But only mothers pass on mitochondrial DNA, to both daughters and sons. It encodes a mere 37 genes, but defects can leave cells without enough energy and can lead to blindness, seizures, muscle degeneration, developmental disorders, even death. Severity varies widely, and researchers estimate 1 in 5,000 children may inherit some degree of mitochondrial disease.
Critics have argued that the first such births would have to be tracked for decades to be sure they're really healthy, and that families could try adoption or standard IVF with a donated egg instead. And they say it crosses a fundamental scientific boundary by altering what's called the germline—eggs, sperm or embryos—in a way that could affect future generations.
"It is reckless to proceed with this form of germline modification," said Marcy Darnovsky of the Center for Genetics and Society, an advocacy group.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Showing posts with label egg donation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label egg donation. Show all posts
Thursday, February 04, 2016
Monday, February 01, 2016
UK's Frankenstein: Designer Babies OK'd by Gov't
Today, the British Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) announced it authorized a private research firm to use abandoned babies, a.k.a. "leftover" embryos, to perform human genetic code editing. Bioethicists have warned for years that such research will certainly lead to so-called "designer babies."
UPDATE 2/4/16: 3-Parent Babies ARE Ethical, Experts Tell President Obama's FDA
Also read Scientists Create Artificial Human Eggs and Sperm
And read Genetic Scientists Worshiped as Creators of Life
-- From "Britain Okays Gene Editing Experiment on Human Embryos" by The Associated Press 2/1/16
Scientists say gene-editing techniques could one day lead to treatments for conditions like HIV, which causes AIDS, and inherited diseases like muscular dystrophy and sickle cell disease.
Peter Braude, an emeritus professor of obstetrics and gynecology at King's College London, said the mechanisms being investigated by [Dr. Kathy] Niakan and colleagues "are crucial in ensuring healthy, normal development and implantation" and could help doctors understand how to improve in vitro fertilization rates and prevent miscarriages.
The gene-editing technique was developed partly in the U.S. and scientists there have experimented with the method in animals and in human cells in the laboratory. Gene editing has not been used for any kinds of patient therapies yet.
Around the world, laws and guidelines vary widely about what kind of research is allowed on embryos, since it could change the genes of future generations. In the U.S., the National Institutes of Health cannot fund research on human embryos but private funding is allowed.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Britain gives scientists permission to genetically modify human embryos" by Rachel Feltman, Washington Post 2/1/16
The news comes less than a year after the first reports of human-gene editing — published by Chinese scientists in the journal Protein and Cell — using the fantastic and at times troubling technology known as CRISPR. By harnessing an ancient defense mechanism built into bacteria, CRISPR allows scientists to target, delete and replace specific genes. It has been used extensively in other organisms, but research in humans has been slow.
The Chinese experiments reported last year were largely unsuccessful. Few of the embryos in the experiment were successfully modified, and even fewer had the changes that scientists intended to make. None of the embryos were gestated, and the authors of the study readily admitted that their error rate was too high for use on viable embryos.
. . . Britain now has become the first country to approve the use of public funding for such research. In the United States, labs have to find private funding for any research that creates or destroys human embryos, and some lawmakers seek to ban it altogether. Even in China, where the first "successful" editing occurred, the guidelines are murky.
The University of Kent's Darren Griffin called the [HFEA] ruling "a triumph for common sense" in a statement, and Sarah Norcross, director of Progress Educational Trust, lauded the decision as "a victory for level-headed regulation over moral panic."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "UK scientists given go-ahead to genetically modify human embryos" by Sheena McKenzie, for CNN 2/1/16
Scientists will be focusing on the first seven days of a fertilized egg's growth. In these early days, a fertilized egg evolves from a single cell to around 250 cells.
The research, which will be led by Dr. Kathy Niakan, will take place at the Francis Crick Institute in London and has been hailed as a "triumph for common sense" by leading figures of the British science community.
However, the research has also raised concerns that it could pave the way for "designer babies" -- going beyond health improvements and modifying everything from a child's eye color to intelligence.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "British scientists granted permission to genetically modify human embryos" by Sarah Knapton, Science Editor, UK Telegraph 2/1/16
Currently around 50 per cent of fertilised eggs do not develop properly and experts believe that faulty genetic code could be responsible.
If scientists knew which genes were crucial for healthy cell division, then they could screen out embryos where their DNA was not working properly, potentially preventing miscarriages and aiding fertility.
The team at Francis Crick are already in talks with fertility clinics across the country to use their spare embryos.
Dr Calum MacKellar, Director of Research of the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics said: “Allowing the gene editing of embryos opens the road to genetically modifying all the descendants of a person as well as full blown eugenics which was condemned by all civilised societies after the Second World War.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Britain grants first licence for genetic modification of embryos" posted at Medical Xpress 2/1/16
[Dr. Kathy] Niakan has said she is planning to modify the embryos using a technique known as CRISPR-Cas9, which allows scientists to insert, remove and correct DNA within a cell.
The embryos will not become children as they must be destroyed within 14 days and can only be used for basic research.
She plans to find the genes at play in the first few days of fertilisation when an embryo develops a coating of cells that later become the placenta.
The embryos to be used in the research are ones that would have been destroyed, donated by couples receiving In-Vitro Fertilisation (IVF) treatment who do not need them.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "British researchers get green light to genetically modify human embryos" by Haroon Siddique, UK Guardian 2/1/16
Prof Robin Lovell-Badge, group leader at the Francis Crick Institute . . . said it would also provide invaluable information about the accuracy and efficiency of the technique, helping to inform the debate about whether genome editing could be used in future to correct faulty genes that cause devastating diseases.
That prospect remains a long way off but is already a subject of concern. There are also fears that changes to an embryo’s DNA could have unknown harmful consequences throughout a person’s body and be passed on down the generations.
Last year, leading UK funders called for a national debate on whether editing human embryos could ever be justified in the clinic. Some fear that a public backlash could derail less controversial uses of genome editing, which could lead to radical new treatments for disease.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Pro-life charity criticises decision to allow UK scientists to genetically modify human embryos" by Staff Reporter, Catholic Herald 2/1/16
After the announcement Anne Scanlan, the education director of Life, said . . . “[HFEA] has ignored the warnings of over a hundred scientists worldwide and given permission for a procedure, which could have damaging far-reaching implications for human beings. We do not know what long term side effects the tampering with some strands of DNA could have on other strands. However once genetic changes have been made they will be irreversible and handed down to future generations.”
Miss Scanlan added: “We are also concerned that such controversial intervention in the human germline opens up the very real possibility of eugenics where the existence of human beings becomes conditional on the possession of certain physical characteristics.
“Whilst we note the HFEA restriction on the implantation of genetically modified embryos, it is sending the wrong signals by allowing scientists the ability to develop and possibly perfect the technology here in the UK. To mitigate any advancement on the potentially dangerous work being undertaken by these British scientists, we believe that an international ban on human DNA editing is urgently needed to protect the future of the human species.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read President Obama's Food and Drug Administration considers lab science that 'Creates' Designer Baby with 3 Biological Parents
And read IVF Eliminating Fatherhood via Virgin Births
"This is the first step on a path that scientists have carefully mapped out towards the legalization of (genetically modified) babies."For background, read Secret Designer Babies via Gene-editing Science and also read Unborn Must Die so Others Can Live, Scientists Say
-- David King, Human Genetics Alert
UPDATE 2/4/16: 3-Parent Babies ARE Ethical, Experts Tell President Obama's FDA
Also read Scientists Create Artificial Human Eggs and Sperm
And read Genetic Scientists Worshiped as Creators of Life
-- From "Britain Okays Gene Editing Experiment on Human Embryos" by The Associated Press 2/1/16
Scientists say gene-editing techniques could one day lead to treatments for conditions like HIV, which causes AIDS, and inherited diseases like muscular dystrophy and sickle cell disease.
Peter Braude, an emeritus professor of obstetrics and gynecology at King's College London, said the mechanisms being investigated by [Dr. Kathy] Niakan and colleagues "are crucial in ensuring healthy, normal development and implantation" and could help doctors understand how to improve in vitro fertilization rates and prevent miscarriages.
The gene-editing technique was developed partly in the U.S. and scientists there have experimented with the method in animals and in human cells in the laboratory. Gene editing has not been used for any kinds of patient therapies yet.
Around the world, laws and guidelines vary widely about what kind of research is allowed on embryos, since it could change the genes of future generations. In the U.S., the National Institutes of Health cannot fund research on human embryos but private funding is allowed.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Britain gives scientists permission to genetically modify human embryos" by Rachel Feltman, Washington Post 2/1/16
The news comes less than a year after the first reports of human-gene editing — published by Chinese scientists in the journal Protein and Cell — using the fantastic and at times troubling technology known as CRISPR. By harnessing an ancient defense mechanism built into bacteria, CRISPR allows scientists to target, delete and replace specific genes. It has been used extensively in other organisms, but research in humans has been slow.
The Chinese experiments reported last year were largely unsuccessful. Few of the embryos in the experiment were successfully modified, and even fewer had the changes that scientists intended to make. None of the embryos were gestated, and the authors of the study readily admitted that their error rate was too high for use on viable embryos.
. . . Britain now has become the first country to approve the use of public funding for such research. In the United States, labs have to find private funding for any research that creates or destroys human embryos, and some lawmakers seek to ban it altogether. Even in China, where the first "successful" editing occurred, the guidelines are murky.
The University of Kent's Darren Griffin called the [HFEA] ruling "a triumph for common sense" in a statement, and Sarah Norcross, director of Progress Educational Trust, lauded the decision as "a victory for level-headed regulation over moral panic."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "UK scientists given go-ahead to genetically modify human embryos" by Sheena McKenzie, for CNN 2/1/16
Scientists will be focusing on the first seven days of a fertilized egg's growth. In these early days, a fertilized egg evolves from a single cell to around 250 cells.
The research, which will be led by Dr. Kathy Niakan, will take place at the Francis Crick Institute in London and has been hailed as a "triumph for common sense" by leading figures of the British science community.
However, the research has also raised concerns that it could pave the way for "designer babies" -- going beyond health improvements and modifying everything from a child's eye color to intelligence.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "British scientists granted permission to genetically modify human embryos" by Sarah Knapton, Science Editor, UK Telegraph 2/1/16
Currently around 50 per cent of fertilised eggs do not develop properly and experts believe that faulty genetic code could be responsible.
If scientists knew which genes were crucial for healthy cell division, then they could screen out embryos where their DNA was not working properly, potentially preventing miscarriages and aiding fertility.
The team at Francis Crick are already in talks with fertility clinics across the country to use their spare embryos.
Dr Calum MacKellar, Director of Research of the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics said: “Allowing the gene editing of embryos opens the road to genetically modifying all the descendants of a person as well as full blown eugenics which was condemned by all civilised societies after the Second World War.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Britain grants first licence for genetic modification of embryos" posted at Medical Xpress 2/1/16
[Dr. Kathy] Niakan has said she is planning to modify the embryos using a technique known as CRISPR-Cas9, which allows scientists to insert, remove and correct DNA within a cell.
The embryos will not become children as they must be destroyed within 14 days and can only be used for basic research.
She plans to find the genes at play in the first few days of fertilisation when an embryo develops a coating of cells that later become the placenta.
The embryos to be used in the research are ones that would have been destroyed, donated by couples receiving In-Vitro Fertilisation (IVF) treatment who do not need them.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "British researchers get green light to genetically modify human embryos" by Haroon Siddique, UK Guardian 2/1/16
Prof Robin Lovell-Badge, group leader at the Francis Crick Institute . . . said it would also provide invaluable information about the accuracy and efficiency of the technique, helping to inform the debate about whether genome editing could be used in future to correct faulty genes that cause devastating diseases.
That prospect remains a long way off but is already a subject of concern. There are also fears that changes to an embryo’s DNA could have unknown harmful consequences throughout a person’s body and be passed on down the generations.
Last year, leading UK funders called for a national debate on whether editing human embryos could ever be justified in the clinic. Some fear that a public backlash could derail less controversial uses of genome editing, which could lead to radical new treatments for disease.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Pro-life charity criticises decision to allow UK scientists to genetically modify human embryos" by Staff Reporter, Catholic Herald 2/1/16
After the announcement Anne Scanlan, the education director of Life, said . . . “[HFEA] has ignored the warnings of over a hundred scientists worldwide and given permission for a procedure, which could have damaging far-reaching implications for human beings. We do not know what long term side effects the tampering with some strands of DNA could have on other strands. However once genetic changes have been made they will be irreversible and handed down to future generations.”
Miss Scanlan added: “We are also concerned that such controversial intervention in the human germline opens up the very real possibility of eugenics where the existence of human beings becomes conditional on the possession of certain physical characteristics.
“Whilst we note the HFEA restriction on the implantation of genetically modified embryos, it is sending the wrong signals by allowing scientists the ability to develop and possibly perfect the technology here in the UK. To mitigate any advancement on the potentially dangerous work being undertaken by these British scientists, we believe that an international ban on human DNA editing is urgently needed to protect the future of the human species.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read President Obama's Food and Drug Administration considers lab science that 'Creates' Designer Baby with 3 Biological Parents
And read IVF Eliminating Fatherhood via Virgin Births
Thursday, August 13, 2015
Human Eggs Best When Fresh, NOT Frozen - DAH!
Breaking new research has discovered that if a man and woman have sexual intercourse they are more likely to conceive a baby than if they have separate experiences with scientists. (Well, that isn't exactly the study findings, but it's close.)
Donor Eggs & IVF 'Creates' Life, Causes More Death
Frozen Embryo Custody Lawsuit to Set Precedent
Scientists Create Artificial Human Eggs and Sperm
Toddler to 'Own' 11 Future Children: An IVF Wonder
-- From "Study: Fresh eggs better than frozen for successful IVF" by Stephen Feller, UPI 8/11/15
Donated eggs frozen and used for in vitro fertilization lead to live births less often than those that have never been frozen, though researchers said the difference between the two is small.
Researchers at the Center for Human Reproduction in New York reviewed data from the 380 fertility centers in the United States, which are responsible for 92 percent of all IVF cycles. The research is from 2013, the first year the American Society for Reproductive Medicine said that oocyte cryopreservation, or freezing donated eggs, was no longer considered an experimental procedure.
Women whose implanted embryos used fresh eggs had live births 49.6 percent of the time, as compared with 43.2 percent of the women who used frozen eggs. When factoring the number of embryos women received, the live birth rate was 56.1 percent for fresh eggs and 47.1 percent for frozen eggs.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "In IVF, success rate for frozen donor eggs lags behind use of fresh eggs" by Karen Kaplan, Los Angeles Times 8/11/15
Researchers examined data from 380 fertility clinics that reported their successes and failures in 2013 to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Those clinics represented 81% of all fertility clinics operating in the U.S. that year, and they performed 92% of all IVF cycles, the researchers wrote.
Though fertility clinics routinely freeze embryos, they began freezing eggs more recently. Only in 2013 did the American Society for Reproductive Medicine declare that egg-freezing no longer was “experimental,” according to the JAMA report.
Freezing eggs makes in vitro fertilization much more convenient for patients and doctors because the egg donor and the recipient don’t need to have their cycles synced. It also has the potential to make IVF less expensive because eggs retrieved from a single donor can be shared more easily among several women. “However, the added convenience and lower cycle costs must be balanced against the lower live birth rates with use of cryopreserved oocytes,” the study authors wrote.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "IVF Birth Rates Slightly Lower With Frozen Oocytes" by Tara Haelle, Medscape Medical News 8/11/15
The data raise more questions than the authors can answer, Edmond Confino, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, Illinois, told Medscape Medical News. . . .
"Using eggs frozen by one center and thawed by another has potential negative impacts on success rates because of the use of different protocols," Tomer Singer, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City, told Medscape Medical News. . . .
A notable finding in the study is the high number of egg donation cycles (20%) that used frozen eggs, according to Richard J. Paulson, MD, chief of the Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility at the University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine in Los Angeles. "That is a high number and indicates that the use of frozen eggs for egg donation is clearly on the rise," Dr Paulson told Medscape Medical News. "It also substantiates the idea that in the future, frozen donor eggs banks are going to be used more commonly."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Delaying motherhood by freezing eggs could harm birth chances" by Sarah Knapton, Science Editor, UK Telegraph 8/11/15
Many fertility experts now recommend cryopreservation for women who want to become mothers in later life, because younger eggs are known to be healthier.
Apple and Google even pay for their female employees to have the procedure, which normally costs between £3,500 and £5,000, so that they can forge ahead with their careers.
But a new study suggests that the freezing or thawing process may damage eggs and could reduce a women’s chance of becoming a mother.
Last year Dr Geeta Nargund, a fertility expert from the Create Fertility European Centre of Excellence suggested that egg freezing would become the new birthday present of choice for 30 year old women. The late Prof Carl Djerassi, who invented the Pill also told The Telegraph shortly before his death that contraception will become obsolete because women will choose to freeze their eggs while young and then be sterilised.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Frozen Eggs Have A Lower Live Birth Rate Than Fresh Eggs, Study Says" by Charlotte Alter, Time Magazine 8/11/15
[The Center for Human Reproduction's Dr. Vitaly A.] Kushnir says the disparity in live birth rates could be partly explained by the fact that patients tend to start with a larger number of fresh eggs than frozen eggs, since donated frozen eggs are often packaged in smaller bundles. “If you start with 10 embryos rather than 5 embryos, you have a better chance of selecting the best embryo,” he says. “But it could also be that freezing and thawing diminishes the quality of the egg.”
He noted that while freezing eggs is no longer considered “experimental,” it’s still not a foolproof procedure, and emphasized that it tends to be easier to freeze embryos than eggs. “With an egg, its only one cell; it either makes it or it doesn’t,” he says.
Another important thing to note is that this study measured frozen eggs from egg donors, who tend to be much younger than women who electively freeze eggs for fertility preservation. Egg donors tend to be between 18-25 (the cutoff age for Egg Donor America, one egg donation center, is 29) while women who freeze their own eggs tend to be in their mid-late 30s. Since most doctors think egg quality can decline with age, women who freeze their own eggs might see even lower live birth rates than the donor eggs in this study.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Teenage 'Boy' Harvests Eggs to be Mother & 'Father'
"The reasons for lower live birth rates with use of cryopreserved oocytes remain to be established."For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:
-- Study authors
Donor Eggs & IVF 'Creates' Life, Causes More Death
Frozen Embryo Custody Lawsuit to Set Precedent
Scientists Create Artificial Human Eggs and Sperm
Toddler to 'Own' 11 Future Children: An IVF Wonder
-- From "Study: Fresh eggs better than frozen for successful IVF" by Stephen Feller, UPI 8/11/15
Donated eggs frozen and used for in vitro fertilization lead to live births less often than those that have never been frozen, though researchers said the difference between the two is small.
Researchers at the Center for Human Reproduction in New York reviewed data from the 380 fertility centers in the United States, which are responsible for 92 percent of all IVF cycles. The research is from 2013, the first year the American Society for Reproductive Medicine said that oocyte cryopreservation, or freezing donated eggs, was no longer considered an experimental procedure.
Women whose implanted embryos used fresh eggs had live births 49.6 percent of the time, as compared with 43.2 percent of the women who used frozen eggs. When factoring the number of embryos women received, the live birth rate was 56.1 percent for fresh eggs and 47.1 percent for frozen eggs.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "In IVF, success rate for frozen donor eggs lags behind use of fresh eggs" by Karen Kaplan, Los Angeles Times 8/11/15
Researchers examined data from 380 fertility clinics that reported their successes and failures in 2013 to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Those clinics represented 81% of all fertility clinics operating in the U.S. that year, and they performed 92% of all IVF cycles, the researchers wrote.
Though fertility clinics routinely freeze embryos, they began freezing eggs more recently. Only in 2013 did the American Society for Reproductive Medicine declare that egg-freezing no longer was “experimental,” according to the JAMA report.
Freezing eggs makes in vitro fertilization much more convenient for patients and doctors because the egg donor and the recipient don’t need to have their cycles synced. It also has the potential to make IVF less expensive because eggs retrieved from a single donor can be shared more easily among several women. “However, the added convenience and lower cycle costs must be balanced against the lower live birth rates with use of cryopreserved oocytes,” the study authors wrote.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "IVF Birth Rates Slightly Lower With Frozen Oocytes" by Tara Haelle, Medscape Medical News 8/11/15
The data raise more questions than the authors can answer, Edmond Confino, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, Illinois, told Medscape Medical News. . . .
"Using eggs frozen by one center and thawed by another has potential negative impacts on success rates because of the use of different protocols," Tomer Singer, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City, told Medscape Medical News. . . .
A notable finding in the study is the high number of egg donation cycles (20%) that used frozen eggs, according to Richard J. Paulson, MD, chief of the Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility at the University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine in Los Angeles. "That is a high number and indicates that the use of frozen eggs for egg donation is clearly on the rise," Dr Paulson told Medscape Medical News. "It also substantiates the idea that in the future, frozen donor eggs banks are going to be used more commonly."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Delaying motherhood by freezing eggs could harm birth chances" by Sarah Knapton, Science Editor, UK Telegraph 8/11/15
Many fertility experts now recommend cryopreservation for women who want to become mothers in later life, because younger eggs are known to be healthier.
Apple and Google even pay for their female employees to have the procedure, which normally costs between £3,500 and £5,000, so that they can forge ahead with their careers.
But a new study suggests that the freezing or thawing process may damage eggs and could reduce a women’s chance of becoming a mother.
Last year Dr Geeta Nargund, a fertility expert from the Create Fertility European Centre of Excellence suggested that egg freezing would become the new birthday present of choice for 30 year old women. The late Prof Carl Djerassi, who invented the Pill also told The Telegraph shortly before his death that contraception will become obsolete because women will choose to freeze their eggs while young and then be sterilised.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Frozen Eggs Have A Lower Live Birth Rate Than Fresh Eggs, Study Says" by Charlotte Alter, Time Magazine 8/11/15
[The Center for Human Reproduction's Dr. Vitaly A.] Kushnir says the disparity in live birth rates could be partly explained by the fact that patients tend to start with a larger number of fresh eggs than frozen eggs, since donated frozen eggs are often packaged in smaller bundles. “If you start with 10 embryos rather than 5 embryos, you have a better chance of selecting the best embryo,” he says. “But it could also be that freezing and thawing diminishes the quality of the egg.”
He noted that while freezing eggs is no longer considered “experimental,” it’s still not a foolproof procedure, and emphasized that it tends to be easier to freeze embryos than eggs. “With an egg, its only one cell; it either makes it or it doesn’t,” he says.
Another important thing to note is that this study measured frozen eggs from egg donors, who tend to be much younger than women who electively freeze eggs for fertility preservation. Egg donors tend to be between 18-25 (the cutoff age for Egg Donor America, one egg donation center, is 29) while women who freeze their own eggs tend to be in their mid-late 30s. Since most doctors think egg quality can decline with age, women who freeze their own eggs might see even lower live birth rates than the donor eggs in this study.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Teenage 'Boy' Harvests Eggs to be Mother & 'Father'
Monday, October 21, 2013
Donor Eggs & IVF 'Creates' Life, Causes More Death
Use of human donor eggs has nearly doubled in a decade, according to researchers at Emory University and the federal CDC as published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). While thousands of human beings are being 'created' every year by a variety of unnatural methods, for every healthy person born of a donated egg, another is either killed or barely survives.
UPDATE 3/15/15: Secret Designer Babies via Gene-editing Science
For further background, read Lab Creates Human Life with 3 Biological Parents and also read Women Who Give Birth Live Longer and Healthier as well as Abortion Risks Later Pregnancies, U.S. Media Silent
In addition, read Human Egg Market Hot for Smart Babes as well as Frozen Embryo Custody Lawsuit to Set Precedent
-- From "More U.S. women using donor eggs to get pregnant, with increased success: study" The Associated Press 10/17/13
U.S. women are increasingly using donated eggs to get pregnant, with often good results, although the ideal outcome — a single baby born on time at a healthy weight — is still uncommon, a study found.
That ideal result occurred in about 1 out of 4 donor egg pregnancies in 2010, up from 19 percent a decade earlier, the study found.
Almost 56 percent resulted in a live birth in 2010, and though most of these were generally healthy babies, 37 percent were twins and many were born prematurely, at low birth weights. Less than 1 percent were triplets. Low birth weights are less than about 5½ pounds and babies born that small are at risk for complications including breathing problems, jaundice, feeding difficulties and eye problems.
For women who use in vitro fertilization and their own eggs, the live-birth rate varies by age and is highest — about 40 percent — among women younger than 35.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Donor egg cycles for IVF have increased, as have good outcomes for donor egg births" posted at Emory University News and Events 10/20/13
The researchers examined data at 443 clinics (93 percent of all U.S. fertility centers) and found the number of donor egg cycles performed increased from 10,801 in 2000 to 18,306 in 2010. An increasing trend was also seen in the percentage of cycles that involved frozen embryos (26.7 percent to 40.3 percent) and elective single-embryo transfers (vs. transfers of multiple embryos) (0.8 percent to 14.5 percent). Good perinatal outcomes increased from 18.5 percent to 24.4 percent. (Good perinatal outcome is defined as a single live-born infant delivered at 37 weeks or later weighing 5.5 pounds or more.)
Further studies are needed to understand the mechanisms underlying the factors associated with unsuccessful outcomes, according to the Emory researchers.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Donor Eggs Increasingly Used for IVF, With Rising Success" by Kathleen Doheny, HealthDay Reporter 10/17/13
Dr. Evan Myers, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University School of Medicine, in Durham, N.C., wrote a journal editorial to accompany the study.
"This study confirms that donor eggs have a high success rate," Myers said. "In some ways it confirms what we already knew. The older you are, the harder it is to get pregnant."
The take-away message for women in IVF treatment, he said, is this: "If the chances of success with their own embryos are low, and if they are willing to consider donor eggs, the likelihood is good they will have a healthy baby." [Albeit, about a 50% chance.]
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Pregnancy With Donor Eggs: IVF Method Sees Rise In Popularity, Healthier Births" by Susan Scutti, Medical Daily 10/17/13
Throughout the span of years from 2000 to 2010, the researchers noted, the mean age of both donor and recipient remained stable at 28 years old and 41 years old, respectively.
[Donor] compensation ranges from $5,000 to $10,000, with first-time donors at the lower end of that pay scale. Egg donors commonly fall between the ages of 21 and 35 — apparently old enough to legally enter into a contract but young enough to respond well to fertility drugs.
. . . a donor will be hurled into a state of temporary menopause with possible side effects that include mild headaches, hot flashes, and fatigue. After this, a donor begins a new series of drug injections that provide follicle-stimulating hormones and ends with a final injection of HCG, a hormone that stimulates ovulation.
Finally, a donor is prepared for egg retrieval. This is performed vaginally; once the donor has been sedated, her eggs are removed with a needle guided by ultrasound in a procedure that takes about 20-30 minutes total.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "'Where did I come from?' Donor eggs, sperm and a surrogate" by Anndee Hochman, Philadelphia Inquirer 10/17/13
The story of conception is no longer a single narrative: woman, man, sex, baby. At its most complex, it can involve five individuals: a sperm donor, an egg donor, a gestational carrier, and the intended parents. Not to mention petri dishes, hormone injections, and a good reproductive endocrinologist.
And the number of differently conceived children is growing. No one tracks the use of donor sperm, but egg donation swelled by 18 percent between 2003 and 2011. In 2010, 58,727 babies conceived through assisted reproductive technology were born in the United States. That's a lot of kids eventually asking, "Where did I come from?"
The latest [way to explain his/her existence to such a child] is What Makes a Baby, a picture book published in May by sexuality educator Cory Silverberg. Illustrated with bright Keith Haring-esque figures (a blue egg and a yellow sperm dance together, each dressed in striped socks and high-top sneakers), the book explains conception for 3- to 7-year-olds without referring to family type or even the gender of the "grown-ups" who are making the baby.
Silverberg, who will give the keynote talk at Saturday's Philadelphia Family Pride conference, initially wrote the story for some friends - a family with a transgender (female-to-male) dad, his female partner, and their 4-year-old son.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Everyone Pays for 'Gay Fertility' Treatments in California
In addition, read IVF: Women Living and Procreating Without Men
"Think forward. If we live in a world where kids are adopted and made with more reproductive technologies and with more parties involved, we will not fret about them quite as much. The kids will just think it's normal."For background, read IVF: 'Creating' Life & Aborting Life
-- Arthur Caplan, a professor of bioethics at New York University's Langone Medical Center
UPDATE 3/15/15: Secret Designer Babies via Gene-editing Science
For further background, read Lab Creates Human Life with 3 Biological Parents and also read Women Who Give Birth Live Longer and Healthier as well as Abortion Risks Later Pregnancies, U.S. Media Silent
In addition, read Human Egg Market Hot for Smart Babes as well as Frozen Embryo Custody Lawsuit to Set Precedent
-- From "More U.S. women using donor eggs to get pregnant, with increased success: study" The Associated Press 10/17/13
U.S. women are increasingly using donated eggs to get pregnant, with often good results, although the ideal outcome — a single baby born on time at a healthy weight — is still uncommon, a study found.
That ideal result occurred in about 1 out of 4 donor egg pregnancies in 2010, up from 19 percent a decade earlier, the study found.
Almost 56 percent resulted in a live birth in 2010, and though most of these were generally healthy babies, 37 percent were twins and many were born prematurely, at low birth weights. Less than 1 percent were triplets. Low birth weights are less than about 5½ pounds and babies born that small are at risk for complications including breathing problems, jaundice, feeding difficulties and eye problems.
For women who use in vitro fertilization and their own eggs, the live-birth rate varies by age and is highest — about 40 percent — among women younger than 35.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Donor egg cycles for IVF have increased, as have good outcomes for donor egg births" posted at Emory University News and Events 10/20/13
The researchers examined data at 443 clinics (93 percent of all U.S. fertility centers) and found the number of donor egg cycles performed increased from 10,801 in 2000 to 18,306 in 2010. An increasing trend was also seen in the percentage of cycles that involved frozen embryos (26.7 percent to 40.3 percent) and elective single-embryo transfers (vs. transfers of multiple embryos) (0.8 percent to 14.5 percent). Good perinatal outcomes increased from 18.5 percent to 24.4 percent. (Good perinatal outcome is defined as a single live-born infant delivered at 37 weeks or later weighing 5.5 pounds or more.)
Further studies are needed to understand the mechanisms underlying the factors associated with unsuccessful outcomes, according to the Emory researchers.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Donor Eggs Increasingly Used for IVF, With Rising Success" by Kathleen Doheny, HealthDay Reporter 10/17/13
Dr. Evan Myers, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University School of Medicine, in Durham, N.C., wrote a journal editorial to accompany the study.
"This study confirms that donor eggs have a high success rate," Myers said. "In some ways it confirms what we already knew. The older you are, the harder it is to get pregnant."
The take-away message for women in IVF treatment, he said, is this: "If the chances of success with their own embryos are low, and if they are willing to consider donor eggs, the likelihood is good they will have a healthy baby." [Albeit, about a 50% chance.]
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Pregnancy With Donor Eggs: IVF Method Sees Rise In Popularity, Healthier Births" by Susan Scutti, Medical Daily 10/17/13
Throughout the span of years from 2000 to 2010, the researchers noted, the mean age of both donor and recipient remained stable at 28 years old and 41 years old, respectively.
[Donor] compensation ranges from $5,000 to $10,000, with first-time donors at the lower end of that pay scale. Egg donors commonly fall between the ages of 21 and 35 — apparently old enough to legally enter into a contract but young enough to respond well to fertility drugs.
. . . a donor will be hurled into a state of temporary menopause with possible side effects that include mild headaches, hot flashes, and fatigue. After this, a donor begins a new series of drug injections that provide follicle-stimulating hormones and ends with a final injection of HCG, a hormone that stimulates ovulation.
Finally, a donor is prepared for egg retrieval. This is performed vaginally; once the donor has been sedated, her eggs are removed with a needle guided by ultrasound in a procedure that takes about 20-30 minutes total.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "'Where did I come from?' Donor eggs, sperm and a surrogate" by Anndee Hochman, Philadelphia Inquirer 10/17/13
The story of conception is no longer a single narrative: woman, man, sex, baby. At its most complex, it can involve five individuals: a sperm donor, an egg donor, a gestational carrier, and the intended parents. Not to mention petri dishes, hormone injections, and a good reproductive endocrinologist.
And the number of differently conceived children is growing. No one tracks the use of donor sperm, but egg donation swelled by 18 percent between 2003 and 2011. In 2010, 58,727 babies conceived through assisted reproductive technology were born in the United States. That's a lot of kids eventually asking, "Where did I come from?"
The latest [way to explain his/her existence to such a child] is What Makes a Baby, a picture book published in May by sexuality educator Cory Silverberg. Illustrated with bright Keith Haring-esque figures (a blue egg and a yellow sperm dance together, each dressed in striped socks and high-top sneakers), the book explains conception for 3- to 7-year-olds without referring to family type or even the gender of the "grown-ups" who are making the baby.
Silverberg, who will give the keynote talk at Saturday's Philadelphia Family Pride conference, initially wrote the story for some friends - a family with a transgender (female-to-male) dad, his female partner, and their 4-year-old son.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Everyone Pays for 'Gay Fertility' Treatments in California
In addition, read IVF: Women Living and Procreating Without Men
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Frozen Embryo Custody Lawsuit to Set Precedent
Two couples in Kirkwood [Missouri] and California who had hoped to share frozen embryos to create an unusual extended family instead traded lawsuits . . . in a legal battle that tests the bounds of child custody law.
-- From "Couples wrangle over frozen embryos' fate" by Robert Patrick, St. Louis Post-Dispatch 4/9/2010
Both couples are suing the other for control of two frozen embryos currently stored in a California fertility clinic.
Their dispute raises ethical questions over the definition of family relationships and even the word that should be used for the transfer of embryos — adoption or donation.
The California couple who first created the embryos, Edward and Kerry Lambert, are suing to secure custody of the embryos from Jen and Patrick McLaughlin, a Kirkwood couple.
The Lamberts had signed a contract with the McLaughlins in February 2009, granting them four frozen embryos.
The McLaughlins used two of the embryos to give birth to twin girls earlier this year. Since then, the two families have feuded over the fate of the remaining two embryos.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 5/14/10: "Families settle dispute over frozen embryos" by Nancy Cambria, St. Louis Post-Dispatch
The announcement via press release Thursday failed to clarify which party had gained custody of the embryos, stating instead: "The [confidential] settlement provides that the disposition of the embryos will be in accordance with the original intent of the parties with the hope that the child or children born from the embryos will be raised with other siblings of the embryos."
. . . a dispute erupted in late February over the two of the remaining embryos when the Lamberts informed McLaughlin that they planned to exercise a clause in the donor contract allowing them to take back any remaining embryos after one year. McLaughlin, who believes life starts at conception, argued the embryos should remain with her and their siblings and had hopes of another successful pregnancy where she could keep all of the future siblings together. McLaughlin and her husband also have five adopted children, four of them from Russian orphanages.
"Regrettably, from a legal standpoint, we are still in a situation where we have no guidance for a situations like this. Day in, day out, people are dealing with fertility issues of this nature," [McLaughin's attorney, Al] Watkins said. "Our courts are ill-suited to deal with these situations, and that's a pity."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Couples wrangle over frozen embryos' fate" by Robert Patrick, St. Louis Post-Dispatch 4/9/2010
Both couples are suing the other for control of two frozen embryos currently stored in a California fertility clinic.
Their dispute raises ethical questions over the definition of family relationships and even the word that should be used for the transfer of embryos — adoption or donation.
The California couple who first created the embryos, Edward and Kerry Lambert, are suing to secure custody of the embryos from Jen and Patrick McLaughlin, a Kirkwood couple.
The Lamberts had signed a contract with the McLaughlins in February 2009, granting them four frozen embryos.
The McLaughlins used two of the embryos to give birth to twin girls earlier this year. Since then, the two families have feuded over the fate of the remaining two embryos.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 5/14/10: "Families settle dispute over frozen embryos" by Nancy Cambria, St. Louis Post-Dispatch
The announcement via press release Thursday failed to clarify which party had gained custody of the embryos, stating instead: "The [confidential] settlement provides that the disposition of the embryos will be in accordance with the original intent of the parties with the hope that the child or children born from the embryos will be raised with other siblings of the embryos."
. . . a dispute erupted in late February over the two of the remaining embryos when the Lamberts informed McLaughlin that they planned to exercise a clause in the donor contract allowing them to take back any remaining embryos after one year. McLaughlin, who believes life starts at conception, argued the embryos should remain with her and their siblings and had hopes of another successful pregnancy where she could keep all of the future siblings together. McLaughlin and her husband also have five adopted children, four of them from Russian orphanages.
"Regrettably, from a legal standpoint, we are still in a situation where we have no guidance for a situations like this. Day in, day out, people are dealing with fertility issues of this nature," [McLaughin's attorney, Al] Watkins said. "Our courts are ill-suited to deal with these situations, and that's a pity."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Human Egg Market Hot for Smart Babes
Fertility customers run ads offering tens of thousands of dollars for young women egg donors with the right genes, looks, talent and SAT scores
UPDATE 5/11/10: ABC News report
-- From "Yes, top students reap rich rewards, even as egg donors" by Stephanie Ebbert, Boston Globe Staff 3/26/10
The Harvard Crimson was one of three college newspapers that ran an identical classified ad seeking a woman who fit a narrow profile: younger than 29 with a GPA over 3.5 and an SAT score over 1,400. The lucky candidate stood to collect $35,000 if she donated her eggs for harvesting.
The ad was one of 105 college newspaper ads examined by a Georgia Institute of Technology researcher who issued a report yesterday that appeared to confirm the long-held suspicion that couples who are unable to have children of their own are willing to pay more for reproductive help from someone smart. The analysis showed that higher payments offered to egg donors correlated with higher SAT scores.
Anecdotal reports have long depicted eager prospective parents willing to pay outrageous sums for carefully screened donors of sperm or eggs, and stories of parents offering tens of thousands of dollars for eggs from geniuses or extraordinarly talented musicians pop up regularly.
The stories have alarmed some medical professionals and raised ethical questions. Concerned about eggs being treated as commodities, and worried that big financial rewards could entice women to ignore the risks of the rigorous procedures required for harvesting, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine discourages compensation based on donors’ personal characteristics. The society also discourages any payments over $10,000.
Fertility clinics are required by federal law to report their pregnancy success rate but not what donors are paid. Agencies involved in donations say they are not purchasing eggs but compensating donors for their time and the ordeal they must undergo.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 5/11/10: ABC News report
-- From "Yes, top students reap rich rewards, even as egg donors" by Stephanie Ebbert, Boston Globe Staff 3/26/10
The Harvard Crimson was one of three college newspapers that ran an identical classified ad seeking a woman who fit a narrow profile: younger than 29 with a GPA over 3.5 and an SAT score over 1,400. The lucky candidate stood to collect $35,000 if she donated her eggs for harvesting.
The ad was one of 105 college newspaper ads examined by a Georgia Institute of Technology researcher who issued a report yesterday that appeared to confirm the long-held suspicion that couples who are unable to have children of their own are willing to pay more for reproductive help from someone smart. The analysis showed that higher payments offered to egg donors correlated with higher SAT scores.
Anecdotal reports have long depicted eager prospective parents willing to pay outrageous sums for carefully screened donors of sperm or eggs, and stories of parents offering tens of thousands of dollars for eggs from geniuses or extraordinarly talented musicians pop up regularly.
The stories have alarmed some medical professionals and raised ethical questions. Concerned about eggs being treated as commodities, and worried that big financial rewards could entice women to ignore the risks of the rigorous procedures required for harvesting, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine discourages compensation based on donors’ personal characteristics. The society also discourages any payments over $10,000.
Fertility clinics are required by federal law to report their pregnancy success rate but not what donors are paid. Agencies involved in donations say they are not purchasing eggs but compensating donors for their time and the ordeal they must undergo.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Reproductive Science Yields Economic Stimulus
Egg donor agencies and sperm banks report compensating increasing numbers of unemployed donors trying make ends meet
-- From "Recession spurs egg and sperm donations" by Bella English, Boston Globe Staff 4/7/09
If a woman meets the agency's criteria, she earns $10,000 every time she donates. (Technically, the women are compensated for their time and inconvenience; it is illegal to sell one's eggs.)
Couples, and some single women, pay $20,000 to $30,000 for an egg donation, in vitro fertilization, and transfer to the recipient. Donors generally must be healthy nonsmokers between ages 21 and 32 with a good family health history, "reasonably educated and reasonably attractive. . ." Screening involves physical, psychological, and genetic testing. If accepted, the woman undergoes hormone injections, then a surgical procedure to remove her eggs. Fees paid to the donor generally range from $5,000 to $10,000. Recipients choose prescreened donors.
Sperm donations are also on the increase, although they pay much less - an average of $85 to $100 per donation. Such "banks" generally require that the donor be at least 5-foot-8, a college student or graduate between the ages of 18 and 38, and in good health.
California Cryobank, which has offices in Cambridge, recruits largely on college campuses and asks each donor for a year's commitment, with the average donor contributing 2-3 times a week.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Recession spurs egg and sperm donations" by Bella English, Boston Globe Staff 4/7/09
If a woman meets the agency's criteria, she earns $10,000 every time she donates. (Technically, the women are compensated for their time and inconvenience; it is illegal to sell one's eggs.)
Couples, and some single women, pay $20,000 to $30,000 for an egg donation, in vitro fertilization, and transfer to the recipient. Donors generally must be healthy nonsmokers between ages 21 and 32 with a good family health history, "reasonably educated and reasonably attractive. . ." Screening involves physical, psychological, and genetic testing. If accepted, the woman undergoes hormone injections, then a surgical procedure to remove her eggs. Fees paid to the donor generally range from $5,000 to $10,000. Recipients choose prescreened donors.
Sperm donations are also on the increase, although they pay much less - an average of $85 to $100 per donation. Such "banks" generally require that the donor be at least 5-foot-8, a college student or graduate between the ages of 18 and 38, and in good health.
California Cryobank, which has offices in Cambridge, recruits largely on college campuses and asks each donor for a year's commitment, with the average donor contributing 2-3 times a week.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)