Changing a Woman's Dietary Habits May Influence the Sex of Her Baby

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-04-24-1849445902_x.htm

Above is a link posted on USA Today's website. The article summarizes a recent study done in the United Kingdom that suggests a mother's diet may play a role in the sex of her fetus. Although sex is determined by the male, certain nutrients or eating patterns prior to conception may make a woman's body more hospitable for sperm carrying the male or female chromosome. In other words, the environment in her womb as a result of dietary habits may be more suited for a male chromosome-carrying sperm, or female chromosome-carrying sperm, increasing the chances that that type of sperm will fertilize an egg. A hearty appetite, not skipping breakfast, and potassium-rich foods apparently raise the odds that the fetus will be a boy. This is consistent with other studies in which, in test tube fertilization, male embryos thrive best with longer exposure to nutrient-rich lab cultures, as well as studies that show male embryos are not likely to survive in lab cultures with low sugar levels. Skipping meals may result in low sugar levels.
The results of the study showed significant statistical correlations between a woman's diet and the likelihood of whether her fetus was a male. Women whose diets were high in calories and potassium were more likely to produce males. The results are plausible from the evolutionary perspective that since boys tend to be bigger, it only makes sense that it would take more calories to create them.
Although these correlations are striking, dietary habits may be indicative of other factors involved that could influence sex, including time of intercourse.



I think this is an interesting theory, and I look forward to learning the conclusions of follow-up studies. It certainly does make sense that the woman has somewhat of an influence on what sex her baby is. Sperm is very sensitive to the environment in the uterus; small changes in pH or temperature, for example, lead to drastic changes in a sperm's ability to survive. The conditions must be perfect.
This does raise some ethical issues. As technology is becoming more advanced, scientists and doctors are finding ways to manipulate the fertilization process: conception can occur outside of the body, the parents can determine the eye colour of the baby, and conception is more controllable (thanks to contraceptives or fertility meds). Though a baby's sex can be genetically determined, altering one's diet seems much more natural- and cost effective- than doing it in a lab. However, is it more ethical? Although this theory has not been proven, and even if it were, it would not guarantee parents get the desired sex, it still makes me wonder whether women trying to get pregnant should start changing their diets to influence the sex of the fetus. Would that be "playing God", by changing what would/should have been to what one wants it to be? Is it fair to one sex to determine the other? What if this leads to an unbalanced population? What if this leads to faster evolution, by parents picking desirable traits over undesirable ones? Although some of these questions are far-fetched, there is certainly logic behind them. I feel, regardless of one's ethical and moral beliefs, changing one's diet to influence the sex is equal in moral value to determining the sex in a lab. Regardless, I think this is a major discovery (if it turns out to be true), and I am very interested in learning more.

Popline Bans 'Abortion' as a Search Term

The following is a link to an article recently posted in the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/05popline.html?_r=2&ref=health&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

In summation, Johns Hopkins University programmed its database, Popline, to ignore the word 'abortion' in searches after federal officials "raised questions" on two articles in the database. The dean of the Public Health School lifted these restrictions. The ban was set after two articles about abortion advocacy were found. According to a school spokesman, the articles "did not face database criteria", and were removed. The dean demanded the ban be lifted, as the purpose of the database is to provide information, not restrict it. Popline is the world's largest database on reproductive health; therefore, according to protesters, restricting searches on an important topic in this field is absurd. Many pro-abortion advocates argue that the Bush administration "politicized science", imposing its conservative views on the federally-funded medical database. Supporters of the act claim that information about unwanted pregnancy can be found using other search terms. Those opposed argue that "abortion" is a perfectly good word, and is not completely synonymous with terms like "unwanted pregnancy" and "fertility control". Not surprisingly, the ban was largely protested.


This is a disappointment. It is the institution's responsibility to provide the most accurate and unbiased information possible to the public so readers who turn to the database for answers can make informed decisions about their health and well-being. Ignoring the word "abortion" is a highly unethical and potentially dangerous practice. Whether or not one agrees with the act of abortion should not determine whether or not the information on the topic is available.