[Wuli]

Again, the science of DNA (life?) continues to admit, in additional ways, that “the gene” alone is not the master of its own fate.

Also, I have often asked if, in as much as one reason couples do things like IVF is that they are having problem reproducing naturally; and therefore, given how many years IVF has been in use now, has there been any study to determine if some percentage of the people who were conceived by IVF have inherited the conditions that limited their parents reproductive chances. And the corollary to that is - if my first question proves correct, then is the whole artificial reproductive industry a self-perpetuating, and expanding industry - helping to “create” a supply of ready future clients?

[James C. Bennett]

I don't know how much this "study" can be taken as fact, because of the small size of the sample population.

Again, the science of DNA (life?) continues to admit, in additional ways, that “the gene” alone is not the master of its own fate.

The DNA of the infertile parents are somewhat off the norm in the first place. IVF merely enforces reproduction, usually over-riding the obstacles that occur in its achievement, without artificial aid.

That said, it is accepted knowledge that genes can be affected by behaviour:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/genome/debate.html

[Mrs. Don-o]

Good question. Another point to make is that IVF doesn't actually "cure" infertility: which is to say, people who were incapable of reproducing normally via sexual intercourse, remain incapable: the underlying cause is not addressed.

A true, morally unobjectionable therapy would identify and modify the underlying cause in order to restore sexual reproductive health and natural fertility--- not try to replace it with a laboratory process.

So strange that nowadays "sexual health" is used as a euphemism for a program of deliberately, temporarily or permanently, subverting normal sexual relationships and procreative processes.