ONTD Political

Have Scientists Finally Figured Out How to Turn Off Our Biological Clock?

10:08 am - 07/05/2012

If your first period signals the official "start" of your usefulness as a baby vessel, then menopause is the long, slow death wail of your fertility. No matter how much money you throw at your uterus, if your ovaries go menopausal it's all systems no on mission pregnancy. Or, at least, it used to be. Everything might be about to change, thanks to new research that's found that by harvesting your ovarian tissue before it goes kaput, freezing it, and then grafting it back onto your ovaries years later it's possible to undo menopause and keep your fertility going for far longer than nature would have allowed. Obviously, that's pretty cool, but it could also change life as we know it. Are visions of 80-year-olds clutching their newborn babies already crowding your head?

These futuristic sounding findings were delivered at a conference held by the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology in Istanbul this week. Doctors made the case that this ovarian tissue transplant should be moved from being an experimental treatment to being a mainstream option for all kinds of patients. Thus far, 28 babies have been born to mothers who received transplanted ovarian tissue and would otherwise have been infertile. Most of the pregnancies occurred naturally, with no IVF involved. While other researchers have been working on hatching eggs from ovarian stem cells in the lab, this kind of direct tissue transplant is a simpler alternative that has the power to extend a woman's own fertile period.



This transplant technique was first reported on eight years ago, yet it has remained experimental and has only been done by a few specialists. But evidence is growing that this is a practice worth expanding. One piece of proof was presented at the conference by Dr. Gianluca Gennarelli from Clinica Universitaria Sant'Anna in Turin, Italy. The case involved a 21-year-old woman who in 2003 was diagnosed with cancer and was set to receive fertility-destroying chemotherapy. Some of her ovarian tissue was collected using laparoscopic surgery. It was then frozen and stored in liquid nitrogen. She underwent the chemo and, as predicted, became infertile. In 2010, she was ready to have children, and so they sewed 32 fragments of her thawed tissue back onto her ovaries. After two months, some of her ovarian function returned. Then she began having menstrual cycles and ovulating. Fifteen months after the transplant, she became pregnant without any additional medical intervention. She gave birth to a healthy baby in March of 2012. That is pretty amazing.

According to Dr. Sherman Silber, a surgeon at St Luke's Hospital in St Louis, Missouri, who has been involved in 11 of these transplants, this technique is "robust"—since in some cases transplants done eight years ago are still working—and should no longer be considered experimental. He says, "It's really fantastic, we didn't expect a little piece of ovarian tissue to last this long." Fantastic and a little freaky, since this is kind of like a little tiny ovarian fountain of youth.

The most obvious use for this procedure is to allow women who are undergoing cancer treatments to be fertile again after they achieve remission—and, indeed, most of the transplants done so far have been on cancer patients. It's particularly well suited to them since the harvesting can be done right away, and it doesn't require prolonged hormonal treatments like existing egg harvesting procedures do. As far as what the promise of control over their fertility offers to cancer patients, the researchers gave this whackadoo explanation:

All modern women are concerned about what is commonly referred to as their "biological clock" as they worry about the chances of conceiving by the time they have established their career and/or their marriage and their financial stability.

Most of our cured cancer patients, who have young ovarian tissue frozen, feel almost grateful they had cancer, because otherwise they would share this same fear all modern, liberated women have about their "biological clock."



Ha, wow. Let's unpack that a little bit before our heads explode and render our ovaries useless. First of all, while it is no doubt nice to know that your fertility is not rapidly expiring while you fart around trying to figure out what you're doing with your life, it seems HIGHLY unlikely that anyone is really like, I'm totally psyched I got this cancer, Doc. It's really taken a load off of my lady mind. BUT that gross overstatement aside, the idea of an eternal biological clock is definitely intriguing to all of us "career women," as the Telegraph calls us in their article about this research.

Obviously, not all modern women are concerned about their loudly ticking biological clocks, but a large percentage of us definitely are at some point—at least if New York Times trend pieces and romantic comedies are to be believed. So what if this treatment could be extended to everyone, as these doctors are arguing it should be? They say that if we had our ovarian tissue harvested while we were still in our fertile period and saved it for later, it would effectively be a way of putting menopause "on ice." Basically, the only thing stopping women from giving birth in their older age would be their "physical ability to carry a pregnancy." Dr. Silber lays out how this might work:

A woman born today has a 50 per cent chance of living to 100. That means they are going to be spending half of their lives post-menopause. But you could have grafts removed as a young woman and then have the first replaced as you approach menopausal age. You could then put a slice back every decade.



In theory, this is awesome; though anyone who's ever watched TLC's Pregnant at 70 will know there are limits to just how appealing this is. For one thing, even if your ovaries can go on living forever, it doesn't mean the rest of you will. Having children when you're truly old means a much higher chance you'll die when your kid is still young, and there are also serious practical downsides like having less energy to chase them around, etc. But what about for people who aren't elderly but aren't in their mid-30s anymore either. This certainly does seem like an appealing option for that demographic, and in some ways this is a simpler solution than undergoing multiple rounds of IVF or other fertility treatments.

In the broader sense, this kind of option would also level the workplace playing field to a certain extent. If women were no longer running headlong into the concrete wall of menopause, it would free us up to make career decisions and child-bearing decisions based entirely on what we wanted to do, not on what nature might be planning for us. We could FINALLY "have it all." (Gaaaahhh.) Granted, we'd have to pay for a likely expensive procedure to work around nature; whereas men don't have to do anything to stay fertile. But at least this option would remove some of the time pressure we're under at the moment.

Of course, as with anything that radically messes with one's body, there are probably some major downsides. Really, we have no idea what the implications of this are and whether it would even be possible to put off menopause for an extended period as these researchers are suggesting. Dr. Tim Hillard, a British gynecologist and expert on menopause, calls this development "exciting," but he says we have a long way to go:

[W]e would need much more data before claims could be made about the menopause. You would have to balance it very carefully, the higher risks of breast and womb cancer that go with having oestrogen circulating for longer against the increased risk of heart disease, oesteoporosis and maybe dementia that go with the menopause. Theoretically it could be used as an alternative to hormone replacement therapy, particularly in women who go through the menopause prematurely, but that could be ten or 15 years away.



Blerg. Okay, but seriously, health consequences aside, let us not forget a major downside which none of the doctors seem to consider: this means you'd have your period for almost your entire freaking life. As much as extended fertility would be a blessing, an eternal menstrual cycle sounds more like a wretched curse. Either way, it sounds like we'll still have to wait a while before we have to commit to a few extra decades of visits from Aunt Flo—though if the tampon companies catch wind of this possibility, they'll probably jump on board and fund this research so fast we'll be able to start doing this next week. In the meantime, let's hope cancer patients can benefit from being able to preserve their fertility, and the rest of us better start mentally preparing ourselves to be chasing our toddlers around at our retirement parties.





Source

bnmc2005 5th-Jul-2012 05:51 pm (UTC)
This title is a bit misleading. I got all excited, thinking finally! Women don't have to worry about their peri— oh wait. No this is the exact opposite. It's for people who want to EXTEND the time for having a baby, not stop it all together.

I see. Um. Yay for them, I guess?
beemo 5th-Jul-2012 05:57 pm (UTC)
yeah! i wanna turn my cycle off without going all menopausal CAN I DO THAT? WHERE CAN I SIGN UP FOR THAT?

no....... they wanna make it easier for us to have babies. well that's great for other people, i'm not gonna take victories away from cancer survivors lol
maladaptive 5th-Jul-2012 06:12 pm (UTC)
Yeah this. TBH I wouldn't mind staying fertile if it meant no menopause, but it's always about fertility and not, y'know, the other shit women have to deal with.
nycscribbler 6th-Jul-2012 02:13 am (UTC)
If only there was a way willing donors could just give our uteri and ovaries and other necessary-for-pregnancy bits to the cancer survivors and skip this grafting procedure. I don't want babies, I don't want a cycle, I don't want to menstruate, but I think the damn thing works.
cuterabbit33 5th-Jul-2012 06:02 pm (UTC)
Those were my exact thoughts. Ah well, maybe someday...?
confectionqueen 6th-Jul-2012 02:48 pm (UTC)
I am glad I wasn't the only one who was thinking this article was going to be the exact opposite.
Yay for those who want this?
beemo 5th-Jul-2012 05:55 pm (UTC)
this is awesome, awesome news.

i wish it weren't so focused on *fertility* but i'll save my comments on paternalism in health care (women are nothing but incubators and we won't let them tell us otherwise!) for another time. reversing menopause in young cancer survivors must have a tremendous physical & mental benefit for those who are interested.
bnmc2005 5th-Jul-2012 07:50 pm (UTC)
This is a good point. :)
cpsings4him 5th-Jul-2012 06:23 pm (UTC)
COMPLETELY OT:

OP, your icon is ADORABLE! :D
endlos_schleife 5th-Jul-2012 07:18 pm (UTC)
it's awesome for women undergoing cancer treatment but why on earth would you want to give birth after you've reached a certain age? I don't understand. children are annoying enough when you're young, I can't imagine what it would be like after a certain age.
angelofdeath275 5th-Jul-2012 07:20 pm (UTC)
thisssss
bnmc2005 5th-Jul-2012 07:53 pm (UTC)
I dunno. Maybe this is better chance for women who want to have a fulltime career when they're young and worry about having kids later- if they're so inclined. I suspect- not speaking for myself- that some women who do want to have kids 'someday' feel pressured to do so when they're younger and put their career, school, etc. on hold. Perhaps this could help them.

lizzy_someone 5th-Jul-2012 08:34 pm (UTC)
Some people can't afford it or don't have a partner yet and don't want to be a single parent. This could buy them more time for their lives to become more baby-friendly (financially, maritally, whatever).
vvalkyri 5th-Jul-2012 09:11 pm (UTC)
and it /might/ be easier and more successful than freezing eggs, which is something I"ve contemplated. Best to do before 30, though ;-/
ceilidh 5th-Jul-2012 09:26 pm (UTC)
It sounds like it's somewhat easier, at least on the woman (I don't know if the storage of the ovarian tissue is easier or harder than storing eggs) because it doesn't involve all the hormone injections and timing and all that goes along with egg harvesting.
vvalkyri 5th-Jul-2012 09:49 pm (UTC)
yeah, and the hormones etc sound godawful
roseofjuly 9th-Jul-2012 09:41 am (UTC)
I just finished an egg donation cycle. The hormones are very unpleasant.
lexiloumarie 6th-Jul-2012 01:26 am (UTC)
I started menopause at 20ish, with no other obvious health issues that would have caused it. I'm still going through it, so options that could mean someday me (or someone like me) could make that decision when they're not college students. It's not just older women.
mirhanda 6th-Jul-2012 02:08 am (UTC)
Yeah, me too. I can't even imagine having babies in my 30s, much less my 70s. OMG.
supermouse 8th-Jul-2012 06:59 pm (UTC)
It means that women can make the same sort of decision about when to have kids that men do, without the 'biological clock' being so much of a factor. There's nothing wrong with having kids in your forties now, given you'll almost certainly live long enough to raise them, and it stops women having to decide about kids just when their careers are really taking off in their thirties.
roseofjuly 9th-Jul-2012 09:40 am (UTC)
Exactly what they said in the article. Some women focus their 20s and 30s on building a career and wait until their late 30s, 40s, or 50s (and sometimes later) to have children. Some women didn't want children younger and changed their minds later. Some women didn't find a partner they wanted to raise children with until their 40s or 50s. Some women were waiting to find a partner but decided to parent as a single mother. And so on. There are many reasons why.
vulturoso 5th-Jul-2012 07:50 pm (UTC)
Phrasing doesn't typically bother me, but for some reason it does here. Maybe because I never intend on being a "baby vessel", and I don't think my life will have less meaning when my reproductive organs finally slow their roll to a stop. Am I being too sensitive?
cupcake_dream88 5th-Jul-2012 08:39 pm (UTC)
Interesting
lizzy_someone 5th-Jul-2012 09:13 pm (UTC)
With the average age of menarche much lower than it used to be, average life expectancies much longer, education inflation (bachelor's degrees becoming more common and graduate degrees therefore more necessary), and the economy frequently being difficult, it would make so much more sense if you could somehow transplant your first decade of fertility onto the later end. I've never met anyone who wanted to get pregnant at thirteen, and there are tons of people for whom pregnancy even at twenty would be a major wrench in the works, but there are kids getting their periods at eleven. Meanwhile it would be way more convenient or feasible for a lot of people to have kids past 35, when fertility tends to drop sharply. Nowadays you've got a lot of decreasingly fertile people in their thirties desperately trying to get pregnant, and a lot of increasingly fertile teenagers desperately trying not to. Even if we can't (yet) temporarily de-fertile-ify teenagers, I think it makes a lot of sense to extend fertility later for those who want it. We inherited the bodies of prehistoric humans who had no such thing as graduate school and who rarely survived to what we think of as middle age. If we can safely make up for the outdated biology that evolution left us with, so much the better.
meran_flash 6th-Jul-2012 05:59 am (UTC)
Love this comment.
roseofjuly 9th-Jul-2012 09:43 am (UTC)
Thiiiiis. Why the fuck did I get my period at 12, but my fertility will start declining at 35? If I was going to have 23 ideal years of fertility they could've at least picked 25 to 48. That would be fucking fantastic. Get all the kinks worked out ages 25-30 and be ready to go at like 32ish. (If I have have children, I don't want to have them until after I'm 35.)
seasontoseason 6th-Jul-2012 08:26 am (UTC)
it's a stretch from , say , 35 or 45 to 80.
seasontoseason 6th-Jul-2012 08:49 pm (UTC)
I know. I meant it at the author more than you. Sorry for the lack of clarity there.
roseofjuly 9th-Jul-2012 09:44 am (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm.
alryssa 5th-Jul-2012 10:16 pm (UTC)
Are visions of 80-year-olds clutching their newborn babies already crowding your head?


Really disliking this article's phrasing. Really disliking it, given that men have fathered babies at that age and much older and nobody bats an eyelid.
mirhanda 6th-Jul-2012 02:14 am (UTC)
True, but presumably with a woman who is much, much younger so even if he does die right after the baby comes, one of its parents will still be around to raise it. Although in this case the 80-year-old mom could be having the baby with a 25-year-old man. (Although, I, personally, am batting a whole lot of eyelids at the 80-year-old men you were speaking of.)
maynardsong 6th-Jul-2012 05:18 am (UTC)
I give plenty of side-eyes to old men who father babies though. Plus, yeah, old men can father children, but the quality of sperm definitely goes WAY down as a man ages. No one ever fucking pays attention to this fact. A baby's risk of having Down's is a function of BOTH the mother's and the father's age. NOT just the mother's.
toxic_glory 6th-Jul-2012 01:28 am (UTC)
Great! Now can they find a way to stop my reproductive systems from working til I'm ready to use them? :P

But seriously, this is pretty cool. I feel like there is a lot of pressure to have children in your twenties and thirties, but nowadays a lot of women are spending those two decades of their lives trying to start careers and finding financial stability. This will certainly help women faced with the decision of having a family and/or having a career.
lone_concertina 6th-Jul-2012 01:30 am (UTC)
Call me when they can turn off my mom's biological clock ticking away at me having a baby ugh
tabaqui 6th-Jul-2012 02:22 am (UTC)
I...dunno. Yay for this working for women who've had cancer and thought they'd be infertile, but...being able to be pregnant at fifty, sixty, seventy? No fucking thank you. I worked most of my 'fertile' life at *not* being able to be pregnant (birth control) and loathed every moment of every period.

My hysterectomy was the best fucking thing that ever happened to me, and my sister prays for the day she hits menopause and doesn't have to screw with it anymore.

ruby_chalice 6th-Jul-2012 11:22 am (UTC)
God does this mean they could delay menopause? That would be fabulous. Because frankly, it's a feckin' nightmare.
kukamine 8th-Jul-2012 06:25 pm (UTC)
That's great, now find a way to get rid of my period (doubt that's ever going to happen though but I can dream -_-).
roseofjuly 9th-Jul-2012 09:45 am (UTC)
One of the reasons I really want to go into research and practice in women's reproductive health is because the researchers in this field are still overwhelmingly male, and they say dumb shit like "all modern women are concerned about…their 'biological clock'…[but] our cancer patients…feel almost grateful that they had cancer."
This page was loaded May 25th 2013, 12:21 am GMT.