By Kevin E. Noonan

Nobel Prize The Karolinska Institute announced today that the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine was awarded to Robert G. Edwards for his work in developing in vitro fertilization (IVF) in humans.

The Institute's press release announcing the prize noted that this work began in the 1950's, finally reaching success on July 25, 1978 when the first human child was born as a result of his methods.  Since then, it is estimated that approximately four million "test tube babies" have been born worldwide as the result of IVF.  The method has helped the estimated 10% of couples who are infertile, and started a "new field of medicine," according to the Karoliniska.

Edwards, Robert G Dr. Edwards's (at left) IVF work was not a simple application of principles that had worked with animal embryos, however.  As the explanation of his work explains, Dr. Edwards "made a number of fundamental discoveries" on human egg cell development and how it differs from animal (rabbit) eggs that had been previously fertilized in vitro, including hormonal influences and the conditions and timing for both sperm and egg to facilitate fertilization.  Significantly for the development of the method, Dr. Edwards found that eggs that had matured in vivo were required for the in vitro fertilized egg to develop past the zygote stage.

First Test Tube Baby While not naming him as a co-recipient, the Institute recognized Dr. Patrick Steptoe, a gynecologist whose contributions helped Dr. Edwards to develop IVF "from experiment to practical medicine."  This involved application to Steptoe's skills in laparoscopy, which was a new technique at the time, to harvest eggs from ovaries in vivo that Edwards then used for IVF.  This was the work that led to the birth of Louise Brown (at right), the first test tube baby in 1978.

The references cited by the Nobel Committee for this work are:

• Edwards RG, "Maturation in vitro of human ovarian oocytes," Lancet 2: 926-29 (1965).
• Edwards RG, Bavister BD, Steptoe PC, "Early stages of fertilization in vitro of human oocytes matured in vitro," Nature 221: 632-35 (1969).
• Edwards RG, Steptoe PC, Purdy JM, "Fertilization and cleavage in vitro of human oocytes matured in vivo," Nature 227: 1307-09 (1970).
• Steptoe PC, Edwards RG, "Birth after the reimplantation of a human embryo," Lancet 2: 366 (1978).
• Edwards RG, "The bumpy road to human in vitro fertilization," Nature Med. 7: 1091-94 (2001).

This work was not patented, and in view of the times, the use of human embryos, and the uncertainties of the procedures this is perhaps not surprising.  This technology is one amenable to other means of intellectual property protection, and at least initially it was difficult if not impossible for others to practice this technology merely by reading research articles — it required the expertise and experience Drs. Edwards and Steptoe had developed to reliably use a test tube to make a baby.  Their experience, even if exercised merely to ensure that the technology was properly used may be instructive for other areas (like genetic diagnostics) that may need alternatives to patent protection as the science and law evolve over the next several years.

Photos of Dr. Edwards and Louise Brown from "Robert G. Edwards – Photo Gallery," Nobelprize.org, 5 Oct. 2010 <http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2010/edwards-photo.html>.

Posted in

8 responses to “Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine Awarded to Robert G. Edwards”

  1. chemist Avatar

    Hi,
    The truth of life is “science” rest everything is false. There are various professions in this world, however, medical research is a “true noble profession”. Robert Edwards deserves what he has been awarded… my many many thanks to all those who are in the field of medical research. The world is looking upon them for medical discoveries that can save life of numerous people.

    Like

  2. Fresno CPA Avatar

    Method is only helpful when done in good purpose

    Like

  3. 6 Avatar

    “This work was not patented, ”
    BUT IF IT WASN”T PATENTED THEN WHO WOULD DO THE WORK? HOW EVER DID THIS ADVANCE TAKE PLACE WITHOUT PATENT PROTECTION?
    lulz. u guys.

    Like

  4. Kevin E. Noonan Avatar

    Dear 6:
    Shoulda kept reading. The point is that things that are hard to reverse engineer don’t need (as much) patent protection as things that are easy. Since disclosure is the goal, granting patent protection fosters disclosure of things that might otherwise remain proprietary.
    Which is a big difference in what some of biotech inventors do versus the inventions you review every day.
    By the way, how did the date with the gorgeous one go a few days/weeks ago?
    Thanks for the comment.

    Like

  5. 6 Avatar

    I kno I kno Kev. Still, I lol at the whole situation.
    “By the way, how did the date with the gorgeous one go a few days/weeks ago?”
    Dude, she’s goregous and pretty cool but dumber than a rock I’m afraid, or else she’s been having a lot more homer moments lately than she usually does. That date went about as well as could be expected, it being a first one and considering how she is. We’ll see how things go from here, I just got back from vacation for a week or so.
    I got offered a job by my uncle at this new startup he’s working at in CA over the vacation. They want me to work as one in my field and they’ll be consulting me on patent issues (though I’d be careful to try not to practice on law and just be explaining how things work in patents, litigation etc generally speaking). LED lighting startup company, what do you think Kev, should I bail on the whole office/lawschool proposition and go or stay?

    Like

  6. De'Liah Mommy Avatar
    De’Liah Mommy

    What was the amount that was awarded to him?????????????????????????????/

    Like

  7. Kevin E. Noonan Avatar

    6:
    It’s all about opportunities – if you think the startup is something you would like to do and is likely to be successful, go for it – law school isn’t going anywhere. I know folks who didn’t finish law school until they were 40 – sounds like you have time.
    Good luck, and let us know what you decide.

    Like

  8. Kevin E. Noonan Avatar

    Dear De’Liah:
    10 million SEK (c. US$1.4 million) in 2009; don’t have the updated number for this year.
    Needless to say, no one does this kind of work for the Nobel prize money. Especially when you realize that they do not award the prizes posthumously, and you can share it with up to two other scientists.
    Thanks for the comment.

    Like

Leave a comment