'Now She's Just an Ordinary Baby': The Birth of IVF in the British Press

‘Focusing and Unfocusing’—Cognitive, Evaluative, and Emotional Dynamics in the Relationship with Human Embryos among ART Beneficiaries

This article uses data gathered from a study conducted in Portugal to examine the (plural and composite) conceptions that doctors, embryologists, and beneficiaries of Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) have of the in vitro human embryo. Taking the sociology of engagements, developed by Thévenot, as its theoretical lens, the article draws on a total of 69 interviews with ART patients to analyse the plurality of fluid meanings produced about this biological entity, whose status is neither static nor universal. ART beneficiaries are likely to produce plural conceptions of the lab-generated embryo within the framework of different regimes of engagement, understood as cognitive and evaluative formats. These various pragmatic regimes, in turn, entail distinct emotional investments. When speaking about their relationship with embryos, beneficiaries therefore express plural emotional experiences, which are articulated using terms such as affection, love, detachment, loss, frustration, hope, mourning, and anguish. Using the theoretical framework of the sociology of engagements, we propose an approach that enables us to produce a detailed record of the connections between the cognitive, evaluative, and emotional dimensions in beneficiaries’ relationship with—and decision-making processes about—the embryos, accounting for the plasticity of emotional states linked to the (re)configuration of attributed meanings.

Reconstructing Robert Edwards: biography and the history of reproduction

This commentary assesses Let There Be Life: An Intimate Portrait of Robert Edwards and His IVF Revolution by Roger Gosden (Jamestowne Bookworks, Williamsburg, VA, 2019, xxix + 359 pp., £15.99 / $19.99), an authorized biography of the IVF pioneer who founded this journal. It reflects on the challenges of placing Edwards in the history of studying reproduction, especially the rise of interest in infertility. It analyses Gosden's narrative choices and practices of reconstruction, in particular of experiences of seeing human eggs, embryos and fetuses. And it suggests that further research should explore the full spectrum of communication around Edwards with a view to illuminating the roles of scientists in transforming reproduction and to feeding back into a richer view of his life.

Reexamining the Ethics of Human Germline Editing in the Wake of Scandal

In November 2018, the announcement that genetically edited human embryos had been used for reproductive purposes caused international uproar; many observers argued that editing the human germline was unethical, particularly given the early stage of the science and the absence of appropriate oversight. We provide an overview of the implications of these events, focusing on the relevant ethical considerations for physicians addressing patient questions and concerns. The editing of the human germline for reproductive purposes should be understood against an historic backdrop of clinical research in assisted reproduction, as well as other exemplars of translational investigation. An important question raised by our growing capacity to genetically alter human embryos is how to understand the implicit social contract between science and society. To ensure that translational research continues to enjoy the historic trust placed in scientists and research organizations, it is critical that scientific and health care institutions proactively engage governments, patient advocacy organizations, and the general public in the formation of policies that guide gene editing.

Reproductive Politics in Twentieth-Century France and Britain

This special issue adopts a comparative approach to the politics of reproduction in twentieth-century France and Britain. The articles investigate the flow of information, practices and tools across national boundaries and between groups of experts, activists and laypeople. Empirically grounded in medical, news media and feminist sources, as well as ethnographic fieldwork, they reveal the practical similarities that existed between countries with officially different political regimes as well as local differences within the two countries. Taken as a whole, the special issue shows that the border between France and Britain was more porous than is typically apparent from nationally-focused studies: ideas, people and devices travelled in both directions; communication strategies were always able to evade the rule of law; contraceptive practices were surprisingly similar in both countries; and religion loomed large in debates on both sides of the channel.