A couple of years back I met a woman who had had quadruplets through an IVF program 24 years ago. I was delighted to find that all four babies were now healthy young people but amazed to find out that I had actually conducted the embryo transfer and had implanted all four embryos inside her womb.

Oh, baby! Pic: Thinkstock

IVF has certainly changed over the past 30 years in that things that were acceptable then are no longer practiced today – like implanting multiple embryos.

The most significant change over the past 30 years has been the improvement in IVF success rates; the clinic at which I work rarely implants more than one embryo and has a multiple pregnancy rate below 4 per cent, as compared to 40 per cent 25 years ago

About one in 25 babies being born today in Australia are born from IVF and most couples who experience infertility are not ashamed to tell their friends that they are going through an IVF procedure.
Whereas IVF may cost between US$15,000 and $20,000 for people going through treatments in parts of Asia and the United States, most people in Australia would pay less than AU$3000 of their own money for an IVF cycle, indicating that IVF is now mainstream medicine throughout our country.

So where are we headed over the next 30 years?

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) for treating male infertility, preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) for prevention of genetic abnormalities in babies, innovative lifestyle programs for preconception care and new culture media have all stemmed from Australian scientists and research centres.

Some of the big advances in the next few decades include:

1. I anticipate that the role of the embryologist will become more and more technical as they continue to ensure that IVF programs are high quality, well managed, and work effectively and efficiently. University of Adelaide Professors Sarah Robertson, a reproductive biologist who has invented a new culture that improves IVF embryo implantation rates, and Tanya Monro, a physicist who is developing new sensing technologies for embryo selection, will make major contributions to this area as they introduce brand new technologies to the field.

2. I envisage in the future that we will be testing all embryos for a multitude of genes and also to make sure that they have all their chromosomes present – this is particularly important because missing chromosomes can result in a variety of impairments. New technology developed at a company called Reproductive Health Sciences promises to revolutionise the practice of choosing embryos in an IVF cycle.

3. During IVF patients have to go through many injections and, although there have been recent advances to minimise these, it will only be with the introduction of orally administrated drugs that stimulate the ovary that we will find IVF becomes much more tolerable. These types of drugs are already in development and under clinical trials.

4. Work in Adelaide and the rest of the world promises to revolutionise our understanding of what is a healthy womb and new sensing technologies will add to our ability to check out the lining of the womb before we put an embryo back. An embryo which has been frozen has a healthier outlook and so this may lead to all transfers being frozen embryos that have been genetically tested.

5. The big ethical questions of our day are in two areas. The first is in so-called ‘reproductive tourism’ where procedures that are banned in Australia can be obtained in other countries overseas. This includes anonymous egg donations, paid surrogacy, sex-selection of the embryo and other similar procedures.

The second area is in the question of interfering in the internal environment of the embryo such as adding mitochondria to the cytoplasm to improve the ability of older eggs to produce babies.  In addition there are a host of new technologies in animals that can produce better offspring and the challenge is how much we will allow this to creep into our human embryology.

There has been a huge change in Australian IVF in the past decade in that university-owned clinics, as well as those owned by doctors, have rapidly been swept up by private equity as part of the commercialisation of the IVF arena. IVF as a splendid technology should be open to all strata of society, even those who struggle to pay for basic medical necessities, and not restricted to the elite, rich couples.

While Medicare has been very proactive in providing funds for IVF, every clinic in the country charges a gap which the patient has to pay. We should ensure that all members of society should have access to this wonderful innovation in reproductive science.

Professor Norman will be one of the presenters about the past, present and future of IVF at tonight’s free public event – Celebrating 30 Years of IVF in South Australia – to be held at 5.30pm in Elder Hall, North Terrace Campus, University of Adelaide. For more information and to RSVP visit the website or call 08 8313 8222.

Most commented

40 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Zac says:

      05:45am | 21/06/12

      I am sure it will help many genuine feminine women living in traditional families, otherwise it is more reason why you don’t need a man. Men are just sperm donors any way. Stuffed from all sides. Peter Singers friend Peta thinks we should treat animals as individuals but many women and the law in the country treats men not even on par with the darwinian animals. Tragedy!!!

    • beth says:

      08:19am | 21/06/12

      Luckily all men aren’t as negative and tiresome as you or else I would have to agree. This article was about hope for infertile couples and singles and you turned it around and made it about you.

      Stop whinging and blaming all woman nand you might see that all along it has been your issue and that you chose the wrong woman.

    • marley says:

      08:39am | 21/06/12

      @zac - if a healthy woman wants to get pregnant without a man, she doesn’t need IVF - all she needs is a turkey baster and an internet order of sperm.  IVF is for people who have actual problems with the reproductive system, and I daresay most beneficiaries are committed heterosexual couples.

    • undertow says:

      09:34am | 21/06/12

      Singers, PETA and darwinian animals. For the life of me, I can’t understand how you forgot to include gay marriage, Dawkins, watermelons and militant atheism in your post… losing your touch?

    • Zac says:

      02:56pm | 21/06/12

      @ marley,

      What is the actual problem of gays and lesbians?

    • acotrel says:

      07:17am | 21/06/12

      How does one ensure that only nice people are born from IVF procedures ?

    • Scotchfinger says:

      09:16am | 21/06/12

      massage the egg as the sperm is being implant, whilst playing ‘Sounds of the Forest’ CD. Baby will be as gentle, timid and New Age as a man could want. Unfortunately ‘Master of Puppets’ was playing during conception of our first child, he is a real little terror *beams proudly*

    • Joan says:

      08:01am | 21/06/12

      I recently re-read ` Frankenstein` and your piece reads like a 21century ~`Frankenstein` .  I like the ending of original `Frankenstein` bettter than yours.

    • undertow says:

      09:27am | 21/06/12

      I take it you’re a skim reader then?

    • Kika says:

      10:42am | 21/06/12

      Is there any other way to read Frankenstein other than skimming? My God. I liked it - when I skim read it between London and Norway. Great read. Haha.

    • Phil says:

      08:17am | 21/06/12

      Id rather see it banned all together, sure there have been many advances and much knowledge gained but if you are not able to have children without this intervention (of if you are a gay couple, who are just as selfish as the rest who want a baby) this is just natural selection.
      Why do we continue to ignore that we are already an overpopulated planet that isn’t not going to be able to sustain itself with the rate at we are reproducing and using resources?

      Not everyone can have everything in life, that includes children. Deal with it.

    • fml says:

      08:47am | 21/06/12

      the overpopulation myth.

      Instead of reducing your first world consumption habits you ask for others to stop having kids to ensure your rate of wastage, it is unbelievably selfish.

      Why don’t the over population spruikers when putting forward numbers of population increases never include the stats on their own wastage, wastage of third world countries and also that agricultural advances will also increase with time?

      Me thinks an agenda is afoot.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      09:47am | 21/06/12

      @ FML

      Khazzoom-Brookes postulate “energy efficiency improvements that, on the broadest considerations, are economically justified at the microlevel, lead to higher levels of energy consumption at the macrolevel.”

    • Scotchfinger says:

      10:35am | 21/06/12

      @Austin 3:16, interesting postulate indeed! Some smart people on the Punch, amidst those who are…less smart.

    • fml says:

      10:54am | 21/06/12

      Austin,

      You are still making the same mistake, you are describing an increase of usage over time an increase in consumption, this is correct, but you fail to allow for the increase of efficiency over time. Improvements in efficiency is not a one off measure, it continues to grow inline with consumption.

    • AdamC says:

      12:13pm | 21/06/12

      Even if you buy the Malthus argument - which I do not - overpopulation is not the problem. Most developed, and rapidly developing, countries have low population growth. For these countries, demographic decline and age imbalances are a much bigger issue than chimerical ‘overpopulation’.

      The proposition that increased living standards in fast-growing economies will lead to disastrous resource shortages is more compelling than the lazy overpopulation schtick, but it is still flawed. Mainly, it ignores that, so long as appropriate price-signalling mechanisms are in place, societies can effectively respond to resource shortages. It also ignores that price signalling affects supply.

      Malthusians have been wrong for the last two hundred years. I see no reason to believe they will magically become right.

    • MattyC says:

      12:19pm | 21/06/12

      The wife and I used IVF just under 2 years ago and got a 2 for 1 deal. I am certain the number of IVF children will make a minimal difference to the overall population of the world.

      Personally, I hope the twins eat your share Phil after all its just natural selection

    • fml says:

      01:02pm | 21/06/12

      Scotchfinger,

      I didn’t know copying and pasting from wikipedia made someone clever?

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      01:23pm | 21/06/12

      Hey FML,

      Increased energy efficiency can increase energy consumption by three means. Firstly, increased energy efficiency makes the use of energy relatively cheaper, thus encouraging increased use. Secondly, increased energy efficiency leads to increased economic growth, which pulls up energy use in the whole economy. Thirdly, increased efficiency in any one bottleneck resource multiplies the use of all the companion technologies, products and services that were being restrained by it.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      03:00pm | 21/06/12

      >>I didn’t know copying and pasting from wikipedia made someone clever <<

      Maybe it depends on your base for comparison

    • Mark/Fox says:

      07:57pm | 21/06/12

      Agreed Phil. if you forget the issues with over consumption of resources and the massive enviromental damage that is happening, our quality of lifestyle is reducing with this growing population, you only have to look out the window to see overpopulation, you will pay the price in carbon taxes, traffic jams, land and house prices, excessive govt regulation, etc, etc,. it does not take a lot of intellegence to see how foolish an idea such as this one is.

    • emotional says:

      08:50pm | 10/07/12

      Phil do you have children? Can you naturally have children? Because I find those negative comments normally come from someone whom can have children with no help. And you have no Idea what people go through to have this child I recently found out that I cant have children as I was naturally born with a condition so I need IVF AND A SURROGATE!!!!!  So who are you to say what should or shouldnt be?

    • M says:

      08:43am | 21/06/12

      If you are going to interfere with the genetic, mitochondrial or chromosonal makeup of the embryo, I’d suggest first looking to fix the need for IVF in the first place. I’m not sure if it’s possible to “select” for characteristics that would lead to increased fertility in any viable offspring, but it’d be good if we could avoid the need for IVF in the first place.

      Cue the rabble going on about the fears and ethics of Eugenics.

    • Scotchfinger says:

      08:53am | 21/06/12

      When I was young, the picture I had in my mind of IVF was, a woman’s egg is dropped into a test tube like those we used at school, covered in sperm then the whole thing shaken liberally like a milkshake. Then a new child grows in the test tube (hence the term ‘test tube baby’ that was in vogue). I wonder if that really is how they used to do it? Glad to hear it has become more refined.

    • M says:

      09:45am | 21/06/12

      I futurama is any indication, I’m pretty sure that’s how it’s done and will forever be done. Notice how Cubert Farnsworth’s nose is squished up? It’s cause he was left in the test tube too long.

    • Veronica says:

      10:13am | 21/06/12

      I hope very much that IVF continues to advance; both my parents were infertile and tried for 6 years before they managed to get me (now 21) at a success rate of 33%. They were blessed enough to get my brother (now 18), when the chance of success was only 8%. It just blows my mind that we wouldn’t exist without this technology.

      My parents, while obviously not perfect, have been wonderful. They deserved to have the chance to have kids. I hope IVF continues to advance so more people like them can have that chance.

      In before someone whines at me about adoption, yes yes I know, that’s beside the point….

    • Kika says:

      10:37am | 21/06/12

      I think it’s inevitable that we will be testing embryos. The advances in embyology are phenomenal. Given we know so much about them whereas in the recent past it was all a myster is great. We can operate on unborn children. We can test for abnormalities before the baby is born. Being able to test for down syndrome prior to birth would have been remarkable. I don’t see how eugenics is such a bad thing. People can be screened prior to having a child as to whether they are carriers for any number of ghastly diseases like Cystic Fibrosis etc so they can do the appropriate screening at the embryo stage to find a healthy baby who doesn’t carry the gene. Yes will become aliens but think of the potential… Just remarkable.
      I’ve done it myself in a way… I’m a carrier for Haemochromatosis so I married a non Celtic person to make sure my children aren’t likely to get the disease. Not really…. But anyway.

    • Sara Somewhere says:

      10:55am | 21/06/12

      That’s nice. Can we have reliable, cheap, side-effect-free and easy-to-use contraception whilst you’re at it?

    • M says:

      12:54pm | 21/06/12

      Do you not know what a condom is?

    • Sara Somewhere says:

      03:47pm | 21/06/12

      Note the word ‘reliable’. Even with ideal use, condoms still fail at too high a rate to be considered effective on their own. I like the idea of the implants, but not the side effects I got from them. It’s simply that I’d like to see just a fraction of the money spent getting women knocked up dedicated to prevention of the same condition. Guess there must not be any money in that.

    • M says:

      04:26pm | 21/06/12

      There’s a male pill available.

    • Scotchfinger says:

      04:32pm | 21/06/12

      Sara: lemon juice. I hear it’s a bit painful, but effective. Possibly the application is not very romantic, however.

    • Benevolent Rapscallion says:

      01:06pm | 21/06/12

      Take away the government support for professional incubators so they put their babies up for adoption. Then childless couples can adopt and the children can live with someone who actually wants them and will care for them. Win, win all round with no need for IVF.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      09:48am | 22/06/12

      We could just coerce single mums to give up their children nope no problems there.

    • kitteh says:

      01:35pm | 21/06/12

      I actually find it more than a little sad, personally. All the amazing scientists and clinicians we have in Australia - and this is what they are reduced to: private funding for what really boils down to non-essential research that benefits a privileged few. If there were more public grants available for medical research, maybe these gifted individuals could work on cancer, autoimmunity, depression, Alzheimers, and other conditions that have a far wider impact.

    • Mark/Fox says:

      08:00pm | 21/06/12

      We are overpopulated, but trying to make more babies. Oh there must be a shortage of humans to create more traffic jams and destroy more enviroment, excuse my sarcasm but how foolish can we be.

    • AnthonyG says:

      08:27pm | 21/06/12

      :Ivf should only be available to couples that cant have a baby the natural way. Under no circumstance should a selfish single lady or a Lezo be allowed to use this

    • Zac says:

      09:44pm | 21/06/12

      LIKE!!!!

      Men are NOT sperm donors!!

    • Mitchell Meek says:

      02:11pm | 22/06/12

      The beauty of this medical technology is that people are able to experience the joy of raising a family even when their own genetic faults or medical conditions complicate or remove naturally occurring processes. It’s truly wonderful that the scientific research and endeavour of so many people can return such a wonderful result. Crying overpopulation is intellectually lazy and relies on outdated assumptions about IVF (the most significant of which was debunked in this article - less than 4 per cent of procedures result in multiple births at this clinic, and such downward trends are being recorded all over the country - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-09-24/more-ivf-babies-but-fewer-multiple-births/1440172).

      As to the selfishness of those seeking IVF treatment or sperm/embryo donation, Australia has one of the safest and best procedures for this in the world. My wife and I are expecting our first child in August, born from the sperm donation of a very close friend of ours. We (my wife and I, my friend and his girlfriend) were all required to undergo counselling and had our motivations and emotional states examined and questioned. This process was undertaken to ensure the child would be born into a supportive, loving environment. The counsellor was then tasked with writing a report which recommended whether or not we were suitable for the procedure. It’s not as simple as walking into a clinic and asking for a turkey baster and asking for their freshest batch of sperm – couples and individuals must know the donor and everyone is involved throughout the entire process.

      Lastly, to all who have made comments about “selfish” individuals seeking to have children through IVF (I’m specifically addressing you @AnthonyG, @Mark/Fox, @Benevolent Rapscallion and @Phil), I would argue that it is your dismissive and bigoted attitudes towards IVF, and towards heterosexual couples and homosexual couples/individuals who seek medical assistance in falling pregnant which cause children born of IVF procedures to suffer from guilt, fear or feelings of inadequacy as they grow older. Negative and ill informed grandstanding hurts the both the children and their parents - not IVF.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Lucy Kippist

RT @HeatherSmithAU: Can living in another country change your life for the better? by @lucyjk on @newscomau f. moi http://t.co/E5Ma3kBut2

David Penberthy

@mooks83 sophisticated response. Think the kids parents saw it differently

David Penberthy

More class from 9's footy show, lampooning a baby that allegedly looks like Sterlo with a pic swiped from Facebook http://t.co/BGoYP6Pn68

Lucy Kippist

A story that's close to my heart - can living overseas change your life for the better? With thanks, @Alisa_reduxhttp://t.co/n6tksJstqs

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter