Since I had the icon handy

Dec 08, 2008 07:29

David Friedman on rec.arts.sf.misc (still part of the thread of doom, of course).

In article ,
"Suzanne Blom" wrote:
> Among other things, we can now support a pregnancy which is not in the womb,
> but elsewhere in the body's cavity.

Isn't that a kludge unlikely to prove a significant substitute?

I would think artificial wombs are a more likely candidate. But I
gather, probably from Lee Silver's very interesting book _Remaking
Eden_, that it's a harder problem than one would expect, because there
is a lot of signaling both ways going on between fetus and womb.

"It's a harder problem than one would expect". Words totally and utterly fail me. Not tags, though. Fortunately.

ETA It appears that words only failed for the first ten minutes of stunned jaw-on-the-floor. Dear, darling, DDF, I am sure the thousands of researchers studying pregnancy and its many complications, including pre-eclampsia, a field in which I am actually myself a contributing author*, are happy and relieved to hear your, divine, judgement that pregnancy is a complicated process, not able to be replicated outside a woman as easily as you might have imagined.

* I know it's not obvious from the minimal amount of information visible there, but at least for a time, it was one of the core citations in research on genetic factors contributing to pre-eclampsia. Our paper is a glorious half page. We just happened to spot something before anyone else did. Here's the most recent paper on the subject I can find.

the-fail!-the-fail!, banging-my-head-cos-it-feels-good-when-i, snark, not-enough-wtf, rasfc

Previous post Next post
Up