Festival of Science: There are unmeasured risks associated with in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and an increased possibility of birth defects as a result of its use, writes Dick Ahlstrom, Science Editor, in Salford
More research is needed to understand these risks and couples need more information about them, according to a leading British researcher.
"I am not arguing that IVF is dangerous," stated Prof Lord Robert Winston of Imperial College London. Rather, he believed that women were not benefiting from "sufficient informed consent" before deciding to undertake the procedures.
In a related talk, a breast cancer specialist raised doubts about the value of breast cancer screening, suggesting that it did very little to reduce deaths associated with the disease.
A professor of fertility studies at Hammersmith Hospital, Lord Winston yesterday told a session of the British Association's annual Festival of Science that IVF, as practised in Britain, had a better record than that in many other jurisdictions.
A number of studies had delivered worrying results about increased rates of birth defects however and these required further study, Lord Winston said.
One study from Western Australia showed there was a 9.9 per cent higher risk of birth defects such as cleft palate for IVF babies, he said.
A US study involving three million normal births and 40,000 IVF births looked at incidence of low birth weight, a condition that increases the likelihood in later life of a person developing diabetes, coronary heart disease and osteoporosis.
"It showed that when you accounted for maternal agethe chance of an IVF baby being born with low birth weight was 2.5 times higher," he said.
Work by one of his own students at Imperial College showed that the freezing used to store embryos awaiting implantation could switch off a tumour suppresser gene.
This change had an unknown effect, he added. "It seems to me that those types of effect must be investigated."
Those studying IVF did not have information about the impact, if any, on prolonged embryo culture, Lord Winston said.
"Even the drugs we give to stimulate the ovaries, there is a surprising lack of knowledge about what effect it might have on the gametes \."
He argued strongly for better regulation and more research. This required government money because state funding usually came with better controls. This included the preparation of better data on IVF practices in the UK.
"We found it was quite difficult to get data back from the HFEA [Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority]," he stated. There was also resistance from some practitioners to his call for more research into safety considerations.
The issue of informed consent also arose in a presentation by Prof Michael Baum, an emeritus professor at University College London, surgeon and expert on breast cancer. He raised doubts about the UK's breast cancer screening programme and whether women were being given all the facts.
The Republic has a similar breast screening programme underway. "I am not arguing that screening has no effect," he said yesterday.
"What I am arguing is how the benefits were framed when women were invited for screening."
There had been a 20-25 per cent reduction in breast cancer deaths over the past 10 years, and this had been linked to the screening. This trend started long before screening began however and much better treatments including chemotherapy and tamoxifen began during this time.
Some 1,500 women would have to be screened over a 10-year period to stop one woman dying prematurely from breast cancer, he said.
"No one argues about the data but women are not offered that information," he added.