Fertility Testing Is Big Business—But Is It Really Helping You Get Pregnant?
By Elissa Strauss,
Glamour Magazine [cites CGS' Fellow Gina Maranto]
| 12. 28. 2017
New evidence shows that the tests many companies use to determine a woman's chances of having a baby are based on bogus science.
"Learn how many high quality eggs you have remaining and your chances of getting pregnant now and in the future,” beckons Egg-Q, one of the handful of new startups offering fertility testing to women concerned about their reproductive potential. The desire to know “how long you have left to conceive,” as offered by LetsGetChecked, or, more simply, “powerful information about your fertility,” courtesy of Modern Fertility, is understandable. Women are having children later than ever, a shift that has proved professionally and personally beneficial, but reproductively challenging. When offered a fertility magic eight ball, many can’t help but take a peek, hoping to discover something, anything, about their baby-making future.
If only that was possible.
These fertility blood tests provide women with an assortment of figures and graphs charting their ovarian reserve, along with a few other measures that will present themselves as authoritative, fate-determining even. But in reality, they offer little more than...
Related Articles
By Jenny Lange, BioNews | 12.01.2025
A UK toddler with a rare genetic condition was the first person to receive a new gene therapy that appears to halt disease progression.
Oliver, now three years old, has Hunter syndrome, an inherited genetic disorder that leads to physical...
By Grace Won, KQED [with CGS' Katie Hasson] | 12.02.2025
In the U.S., it’s illegal to edit genes in human embryos with the intention of creating a genetically engineered baby. But according to the Wall Street Journal, Bay Area startups are focused on just that. It wouldn’t be the first...
By Pam Belluck and Carl Zimmer, The New York Times | 11.19.2025
Gene-editing therapies offer great hope for treating rare diseases, but they face big hurdles: the tremendous time and resources involved in devising a treatment that might only apply to a small number of patients.
A study published on Wednesday...
Several recent Biopolitical Times posts (1, 2, 3, 4) have called attention to the alarmingly rapid commercialization of “designer baby” technologies: polygenic embryo screening (especially its use to purportedly screen for traits like intelligence), in vitro gametogenesis (lab-made eggs and sperm), and heritable genome editing (also termed embryo editing or reproductive gene editing). Those three, together with artificial wombs, have been dubbed the “Gattaca stack” by Brian Armstrong, CEO of the cryptocurrency company...