Category Archives: Embryology

Embryology

Assisted Reproductive Technology Market Poised to Garner Maximum Revenues During 2025 The Courier – The Courier

In-vitro fertilization (IVF) technology would account for an unrivalled patient base, as compared to surrogacy and artificial insemination, on the back of the high success rate of the procedure. The introduction of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) technology helps medical professionals screen embryos for inherited diseases, which further improves the prospects of conceiving a healthy child.

Conditions such as PCOD/PCOS are found to worsen the reproductive performance of women, which leads to remote chances of conceivability, thereby encouraging women to undergo infertility treatment using assisted reproductive technology. Based on these relevant insights, authors of an exclusive Fact.MR study estimate a CAGR of around 6.3% for the expansion of theassisted reproductive technology marketduring the forecast period (2020-2025).

Fertility Clinics Scoring Well in Assisted Reproductive Technology Market

Numerous treatment cycles of infertility treatment using assisted reproductive technology turn the procedure highly expensive. Fertility clinics are magnifying their focus on offering one-stop solutions, ranging from diagnostics to treatment. Investments have also increased towards the development of separate semen and embryology labs to ensure a stable, pathogen-free, and non-toxic environment for gamete handling.

Focus of medical professionals of fertility clinics has been on offering quality service to patients by leveraging advanced technology, which, in turn, is boosting the demand for neoteric equipment and devices from fertility clinics. Considering these influences, in 2020 alone, fertility clinics are projected to contribute around US$ 16.8 Bn revenue to the assisted reproductive technology market, which is the highest as compared to hospitals and centres offering similar services.

Access Research Methodology Prepared By Experts https://www.factmr.com/connectus/sample?flag=RM&rep_id=4393

Regional analysis includes

Get More Insights http://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2019/03/11/1751263/0/en/Production-and-Automation-Trend-Propel-Belt-Scale-Market-Growth-Fact-MR.html

The Report Covers Exhaustive Analysis On:

The Assisted Reproductive Technology Market report answers the following queries:

Share Your Requirements & Get Customized Reports https://www.factmr.com/connectus/sample?flag=RC&rep_id=4393

About Us:

Market research and consulting agency with a difference! Thats why 80% of Fortune 1,000 companies trust us for making their most critical decisions. While our experienced consultants employ the latest technologies to extract hard-to-find insights, we believe our USP is the trust clients have on our expertise. Spanning a wide range from automotive & industry 4.0 to healthcare & retail, our coverage is expansive, but we ensure even the most niche categories are analyzed. Oursales offices in United States and Dublin, Ireland.Headquarterbased in Dubai, UAE.Reach out to us with your goals, and well be an able research partner.

Contact:

US Sales Office:11140 Rockville PikeSuite 400Rockville, MD 20852United StatesTel: +1 (628) 251-1583

Corporate Headquarter:

Unit No: AU-01-H Gold Tower (AU),

Plot No: JLT-PH1-I3A,Jumeirah Lakes Towers,

Dubai, United Arab Emirates

See the original post:
Assisted Reproductive Technology Market Poised to Garner Maximum Revenues During 2025 The Courier - The Courier

Embryology

Biden Believes in Science So Long as the Teachers Unions Approve – National Review

President Joe Biden and First Lady Jill Biden visit Yorktown Elementary School in Yorktown, Va., May 3, 2021.(Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)

Democrats love to claim that they stand against political interference in science.

This is often an oversimplified understanding of how science and technology interact with government. Decisions about public-health policy or energy policy almost invariably entail the sorts of competing priorities that should involve the peoples democratically elected representatives. We do not live in a dictatorship robed in white lab coats. It is also wildly hypocritical. Democrats are not against politics in science only against politics they do not like. A glance at their treatment of embryology, biological sex, or nuclear power is proof enough of that. The latest example comes from evidence of the Biden administration allowing the Centers for Disease Controls guidance on school reopening to be influenced by one of the nations largest teachers unions.

During the 2020 campaign, Biden and his political and media allies leaned hard on the argument that the Trump administration was using undue political influence to disregard science. Biden was the first presidential candidate endorsed by Scientific American in its 175-year history. In Bidens convention speech, he declared, Decency, science, democracy. They are all on the ballot. In October, he tweeted, I believe in science. Donald Trump doesnt. Its that simple, folks. In January, announcing his science advisers, Biden proclaimed, Were going to lead with science and truth a line intended and received as an attack on the Trump administration. One of his first executive orders declared it the policy of my Administration to listen to the science. His CDC director, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, claimed that Trump muzzled scientists. Kamala Harris recently tweeted, I am proud that science is back in the White House. Bidens Office of Science and Technology Policy has even instituted an investigation into what it calls its predecessors blatant attempts to distort, to cherry pick and disregard science.

One of the specific charges against the Trump administration was that White House COVID-19 adviser Dr. Scott Atlas had intervened in shaping the language of CDC reports during the pandemic. Biden ally Representative James Clyburn thundered that this amounted to political interference in the nations public health response to the coronavirus pandemic, overruling and bullying scientists and making harmful decisions that allowed the virus to spread more rapidly.

The Biden-Harris campaign even stoked irresponsible fears that a COVID vaccine developed by pharmaceutical companies and cleared by the regulatory bureaucracy would be unsafe if it was announced by the Trump White House. As Harris declared in the vice presidential debate, If Donald Trump tells us to take it, Im not taking it.

Given all of this rhetorical high dudgeon, voters might reasonably expect this administration to be purer than Caesars wife on the specific issue of the CDCs pronouncements on the COVID pandemic. Any voter who believed that should be sadly disappointed.

In February, Dr. Walensky told the press that there were increasing data to suggest that schools can safely reopen and that safe reopening does not suggest that teachers need to be vaccinated. Press Secretary Jen Psaki immediately backtracked, telling reporters that Walensky was speaking in her personal capacity and that there was no official guidance from the CDC yet on the vaccination of teachers and what would be needed to ensure the safe reopening of schools. This despite extensive evidence, even from CDC studies, that it was safe for schools to fully reopen. The CDC ignored that evidence in releasing its guidelines in March, insisting that schools should generally be closed or partly virtual when community spread is high and the school doesnt have routine testing a standard that would be failed in 90 percent of the country at the time, under the agencys definition of high spread. A group of doctors who conducted a study of school districts in Wood County, Wis., even publicly accused the CDC of misrepresenting their research. The administration also intervened to block the CDC from revising its guidelines on travel to allow for travel by people who have been fully vaccinated.

Now, a Freedom of Information Act request by the conservative watchdog group Americans for Public Trust, reported by the New York Post, reveals the depth of political interference in the school-reopening guidance. The powerful American Federation of Teachers, which spent nearly $20 million to elect Democrats in 2020, was deeply involved in crafting the CDC guidance. One AFT email to officials in the Biden White House said: We were able to review a copy of the draft guidance document over the weekend and were able to provide some initial feedback to several staff this morning about possible ways to strengthen the document. This and other AFT emails to the White House were then forwarded to Walensky by the White House, lest she miss the point of who was calling the shots. The AFT also leaned on Walensky directly, and AFT president Randi Weingarten lobbied her by phone. As a result, the Post noted at least two instances of AFT-drafted language being inserted verbatim into the CDC guidelines, in each case to limit in-person instruction.

Many Americans have had their eyes opened during the past year to the lengths to which the teachers unions will go in placing the interests of their members ahead of the interests of children. Now, they can see the Biden administration bending the CDC itself to the unions will. Whatever this is, it is not science.

Visit link:
Biden Believes in Science So Long as the Teachers Unions Approve - National Review

Embryology

Assisted reproductive technology in Australia and the United Kingdom – BioNews

15 February 2021

Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of New South Wales. Director of Reproductive Medicine, Royal Hospital for Women, Sydney

Uptake of IVF and related technologies has increased exponentially throughout the developed world over the last two decades and births after assisted reproductive technology (ART) make a significant contribution to the total birth rateof many countries.

However, two major problems continue to impede progress in many settings, namely safety (mainly the impact of multiple births after multiple embryo transfer on the health of the children resulting from ART), and accessibility, with high costs of treatment preventing many couples from being able to pay to use this technology.

In this article, I will contrast possible solutions to these obstacles taken by two 'First World' countries.

The Office of National Statistics reports that, in 2018, there were 657,076 live births in England and Wales, a decrease of 3.2 percent since 2017 and a 9.9 percent decrease since the most recent peak live birth rate in 2012. This resulted in a fall in the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) to 1.7 children per woman, lower than all previous years on record except 1977 and 1999-2002.

More recent data showed that this trend is continuing, with fewer births in 2020 compared with 2019. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA)database shows that the number of live births resulting from IVF in the UK in 2018 was 19,728, suggesting that approximately three percent of live births resulted from IVFthat year.

The comparison with practice in Australia is stark. There were 14,355 live births resulting from IVF in Australia in 2018, representing almost five percent of all live births. The population of Australia continues to grow, with an annual growth of 1.3 percent between 2019 and 2020, with a healthier total fertility rate of 1.83 in 2020.

My opportunity to explore the clinical, social and political forces that drive these variances in uptake of IVF in the two countries results from my having worked in reproductive medicine for the NHS for over 20 years before moving to work in a similar clinical academic practice in Sydney in 2011. This has given me insights into the provision and uptake of IVF services in the two countries.

The most obvious difference one perceives when moving from healthcare practice in the UK to Australia is the fundamental difference between the NHS and the Australian Medicare-funded public health system. Provision of Medicare services is universal in Australia to citizens and those with a permanent residency visa. The system is generous, reflecting the overall wealth of the nation, but requires all patients to pay a proportion of their healthcare costs in many situations. There is a liberal safety net which provides those of low income with access to quality healthcare across the country. From an IVF perspective, Medicare funds approximately 50 percent of the cost of an IVF cycle. At the present time, there are no limits on funding based on the number of cycles a woman or couple have had previously, nor on the woman's or man's age. Using some metrics, the Australian system is the second most generous to couples requiring IVF after Israel.

The position in the UK is not only vastly different from Australia but it is also different across the devolved nations.In England the NHS has never embraced IVF and has always placed it low on its list for funding priority. Although clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) are instructed by the NHS to provide three full cycles of IVF to eligible patients, this goal has never been achieved by more than a fraction of the 135 CCGs in England. Currently only 17percent of CCGs offer three full cycles recommended by the UK Department of Health and Social Care. IVF is therefore usually funded from a couple's taxable earned income and although costs vary from centre to centre, many couples will spend more than 5000 per cycle of IVF treatment. The situation appears worst in London where less than 25 percent of IVF treatments are supported by the NHS .

The method of delivery of IVF also differs between the two nations. Australian IVF is almost entirely delivered in the private sector, mostly by large corporations that own networks of clinics within the main Eastern states. Corporatisation of IVF has not been without its problems quality of research into human reproduction and its failings in Australia has dropped dramatically over the last two decades, and couples from less well-off sections of society find it difficult to cover the costs of their treatment even with Medicare reimbursement.

However, Australia continues to excel in one key area of IVF practice, namely single embryo transfer, which is almost universally practised across the country resulting in a multiple IVF birth rate of only four percent. Despite recent improvement, the equivalent figure for the UK is double, probably driven by a couple's desire to mitigate further financial burden by pushing for double embryo transfer. This problem may be exacerbated by the attitude of some prominent clinicians who continue to advocate for multiple embryo transfer despite overwhelming evidence of increased risk of harm to the children as a result of this outdated practice.

Conversely, one area in which the UK has considerably outstripped Australia is in the provision of clinical information to consumers, clinics and politicians. TheHFEAhas been in existence since 1991 and, despite many problems and setbacks, continues to provide high-quality clinic-specific data, which informs CCGs and patients.

Perhaps inevitably, due to the more corporate nature of ART provision in Australia, there has been a huge delay in providing clinic-specific data. As an outsider, I find this surprising, particularly since Medicare, ie, the Australian Government, covers approximately half the cost of IVF. However, after significant political pressure and negotiation of many roadblocks placed in its path by influential opponents, the 'yourivfsuccess.com.au' website developed by the National Perinatal Epidemiology and Statistics Unit with funding from the Australian Government has just gone live. This will no doubt attract significant press interest and its impact on the IVF sector will be fascinating to watch. Personally, I doubt much will change in the short term, but if the UK processes are replicated, performance of the lower quartile clinics will improve over time.

On a more basic level, Australians are used to paying for healthcare. The principle of co-payment for health such that the patient pays for some proportion of their treatment is universal, whilst the expectation in the UK continues to bethat healthcare should be at no cost to the patient at the point of delivery. This laudable principle has underpinned the NHS since its foundation after the Second World War, but it may be time to reconsider itsuniversality.

A partial subsidisation by the NHS of the majority of IVF cyclesfor those qualifying under well-established rules based on probability of IVF success would reduce costs to patients, improve access, improve quality of clinical care and increase the number of IVF births. This in turn may help reverse the fall in total fertility rate that the country is currently experiencing. The UK Government has now announced a reform of the governance of the NHS, reversing the internal market introduced as part of the Lansley review a decade ago, and abolishing GP led commissioning. A more 'top-down'approach may allow a measured introduction of a co-payment system for IVF patients, which would be to the benefit of many and the detriment of none.

Link:
Assisted reproductive technology in Australia and the United Kingdom - BioNews

Embryology

Egg Freezing Is On The Up: But Do Clinics Advertise It Correctly? – SheThePeople

Egg freezing on the rise: More women in the UK than ever before are considering freezing their eggs, with the sharp rise in inquiries at some of Londons largest clinics attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic. No wonder perhaps, since social restrictions have impacted single people wishing to couple-up, making it significantly more difficult to go on dates or meet potential partners.

The current prolonged uncertainty about the future has exacerbated the concerns that many single childless women especially those in their mid-30s were already reporting, including anxieties about the ticking of their biological clocks and fears over age-related fertility decline.

Sarah, a 36-year-old HR manager who recently came out of a four-year relationship, feels the pandemic could not have come at a more costly time in her personal life. She told me, I have this constant underlying worry that by the time this all blows over and I can finally meet someone, I might have missed the boat to become a mother.

It is easy to see why women like Sarah might opt for egg freezing. Yet while this technology can certainly be useful for some women, new research reveals that it may not always be as straightforward as it appears.

Many aspects of egg freezing have been discussed in the media, yet to date, there has been almost no attention paid to the ways in which fertility clinics advertise, market and promote their egg freezing services on their websites, and the quality of information that is available to potential patients considering their options.

In order to address this gap, my colleague Emily Tiemann and I analysed the websites of the UKs 15 largest fertility clinics offering egg freezing. Our recently published findings make uncomfortable reading.

Our research suggests that fertility clinic websites in the UK, taken in general, provide a poor standard of information and, we argue, need to be urgently improved, for reasons of both medical ethics and consumer rights. Of course, as websites are dynamic entities some of them may have already improved or changed since we took our snapshot (in June 2019), but our findings nevertheless raise concerns for potential patients.

We found that most of the clinics we looked at presented what we believe is an unbalanced view of egg freezing on their websites, highlighting its potential benefits and failing to adequately discuss its potential risks. Clinics websites were also not sufficiently clear and transparent about the cost of an egg freezing cycle, with the average true cost exceeding the advertised costs by approximately a third (on average an additional 923).

Finally, we came to the view that clinics did not always provide accurate data or success rates. In fact, of the 15 analysed, we only rated one clinic website as good in terms of its quality of information.

We found that most of the clinics we looked at presented what we believe is an unbalanced view of egg freezing on their websites, highlighting its potential benefits and failing to adequately discuss its potential risks.

We reached out to all 15 clinics for comment. Harley Street Fertility Clinic responded, We welcome the Gurtin and Tiemann paper because it aims to improve the quality of information provided to patients. However, we do not necessarily agree with all the metrics and indicators used by the authors as part of their review [] As a clinic, we strive to be clear and transparent in our communications. Hence, we will use the suggestions made in the paper to improve our communications with patients.

IVI Midland responded by pointing out that since 2019, the clinic had been acquired by CARE Fertility and therefore the website we analysed is no longer active. CARE Fertility, meanwhile, replied, The number of egg freezing cycles we carry out is very small, and as success rate data is only available once a woman returns for fertility treatment (often many years later), we have even less success rate data [] At the time of the study in June 2019, the egg freezing page of our website could have more clearly explained the costs involved with egg freezing, but we have since updated the page to further help patients access the information they need.

The other clinics we approached for comment did not respond. But it is welcome news that some have been working to improve their website content.

We have issued an urgent recommendation for clinic websites to be improved, but it is difficult for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) to enforce such changes when much of the economic or commercial aspects of fertility treatments fall outside its remit.

But the issue is pressing, since we contend that the lack of good quality information compromises the ability of women like Sarah to make truly informed decisions, and leaves them inadequately informed or misinformed about crucial aspects, such as costs to plan for or potential risks to weigh up.

Justine*, a journalist who lives in London, froze her eggs two years ago, aged 38. She told me that although she went to some lengths to research the technology, she still felt unprepared for the reality of how it would feel to freeze her eggs.

Justine found herself in considerably more physical discomfort than she had expected, feeling bloated, uncomfortable and in pain despite having been told she would be able to go about her normal life before the procedure. Her physical discomforts continued and even worsened after egg collection, As the hours passed, I still felt incredibly weak, bloated and short of breath. I called the clinic who just said if you continue to feel bad, then go to A&E. It was at that point I felt very alone.

She felt that the clinic had relinquished all responsibility. I went to A&E and was admitted overnight, with a series of tests and observations confirming that I had OHSS, she said.

While Justine was unlucky to suffer from ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), a rare complication of the IVF and egg freezing processes caused by the production of too many eggs, she felt she lacked information about this potential risk and that the clinic didnt offer adequate follow-up care.

The fertility industry is becoming increasingly commercialised, a consideration that is particularly pertinent in the case of egg freezing, which takes place primarily in the private sector. This is an aspect that Lucy van de Wiel, a researcher at Cambridge Universitys Reproductive Sociology Research Group, focuses on.

Her new book, Freezing Fertility, draws attention to the potential conflicts between clinical decision-making or patients best interests on the one hand and business and profit motives on the other. Market forces in the fertility industry, political interests underlying regulations, and age-old cultural narratives of gender and motherhood play a role in our reproductive decision-making.

The fertility industry is becoming increasingly commercialised, a consideration that is particularly pertinent in the case of egg freezing, which takes place primarily in the private sector.

Given this, I would urge women considering egg freezing to look beyond the information on clinic websites. In particular, women may wish to ask clinics for specific and verified data regarding the number of cycles they have performed each year or their success rates.

They may want to ask questions about exactly what is and is not included in advertised pricing, and to consult the HFEA website for an unbiased discussion of the benefits and risks of the technology. It can also be extremely helpful to discuss egg freezing with others who have been through the process, to gain a realistic impression of what it involves.

Despite her difficulties, overall Justine feels a sense of comfort knowing that she has frozen eggs in storage, but she does offer a note of caution:

While the process is presented as being fairly straightforward, it does have powerful physical, emotional and psychological impacts so it is important not to gloss over it as a procedure and make sure you have support available.

*Name and identifying details have been changed.

Zeynep Gurtin, Lecturer in Womens Health, UCL published this article first on The Conversation. The views expressed are the authors own.

Read this article:
Egg Freezing Is On The Up: But Do Clinics Advertise It Correctly? - SheThePeople

Embryology

The 14-day limit should be extended to 28 days – BioNews

15 February 2021

MSc Bioethics and Society student, King's College London

The '14-day rule', initially proposed in 1979 in the USA, was first recommended in the UK by the Warnock Committee in 1984. It limits research on intact human embryos to 'prior to 14 days' gestation or the beginning of primitive streak formation' and is part of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Acts of 1990 and 2008(HFE Acts).

This legislation has been successfully implemented in the UK, but also in several other countries (eg, Australia's Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002). It is followed in jurisdictions without relevant laws or even guidelines. While researchers accepted the rule, and have been content to keep to it, many contend that it was simply an arbitrary time limit that was chosen as a compromise to authorise any research at a time when pro-life views were strong. While originally it was a barrier that could not be breached for practical reasons, recent research on human and non-human primate embryos suggest that we now have methods to culture intact human embryos beyond 14 days.

I recently argued, in the Journal of Medical Ethics, that the current limit for embryo research should be extended to 28 days to permit research that will further explore our origins as well as potentially provide new therapeutic possibilities to reduce developmental abnormalities and miscarriage.

This conversation is something the Progress Educational Trust (PET), the charity which publishes BioNews, has been advocating for many years. Recent work they have accomplished includes a proposal to the 'My Science Inquiry' launched by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. Sandy Starr, deputy director of PET gave oral evidence to the committee advocating for this conversation to be had by government, as it is already an ongoing debate within the scientific community. PET also held their annual conference in 2016, which focused on the 14-day limit on human embryo research, and that featured Baroness Mary Warnock, who was chair of the committee that originally proposed the limit in 1984.

There are a number of reasons why research on embryos between 14 and 28 days, often referred to as the 'black box' period of development, is now ready to be initiated. Several of these are emphasised in my paper.

Firstly, the 'black box' period is when the basic body plan and the formation of critical cell types, tissues, and some organs is initiated. These include germ cells, which are not only essential for the next generation, but are also the early progenitors of the nervous system, blood cells and the heart, and the placenta. It is known that even a subtle defect can have a devastating effect on subsequent development. While we know something about how these develop in model organisms such as the mouse, there are clear differences with human embryos, making it difficult to infer results between species. We also can't yet rely on new stem cell-based models of early human embryos without first carrying out detailed comparisons with the real thing.

It could be argued that 28 days is not long enough. Whilst this is certainly a thought-provoking point, we are already able to obtain embryonic tissues from 28 days and beyond and older fetal tissue to use in scientific research eg, from an aborted fetus. It is also important to consider the need for a 'limit'. If there is not one at all, there is no compromise, discontent, and it could complicate the regulatory system.

In conversations surrounding the 14-day limit there are differing ethical opinions. I argue that in order for those trying for a baby to have legitimate reproductive autonomy, they should have the appropriate assistance and opportunity to produce, at the very least, a healthy child. I also focus on the need to differentiate between 'research' embryos and 'reproductive implanted embryos' ie, the research embryos in question are those whose location will remain in a petri dish.

It is absolutely crucial to outline the importance of a robust regulatory body. In the UK, we are lucky to have the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), which means there is government oversight making sure fertility clinics and research centres comply with the law, this extends to human embryo research. For example, in 2016, Dr Kathy Niakan was not just the first person in the UK to be granted a license from the HFEA to use genome editing techniques on human embryos, but the first anywhere to have this type of research sanctioned by a regulatory body. (See BioNews 835).

With any significant legislative change that will directly impact the population, significant public debate must be instigated. Public opinion must be widely surveyed and considered, because any decisions like this should not just be one made by a select few individuals. This can be seen with another significant change in the HFE Act, the addition of mitochondrial donation regulations in 2015, which is an example where public engagement was very important. It gave the Government license to make the changes in the HFE Acts, knowing that there was broad support for the use of the methods to avoid mitochondrial disease.

As I conclude in the paper, just because something has once worked does not mean it should stay the same or not strive to be improved. The 14-day limit has become limiting and the conversation around extension must continue.

Read more here:
The 14-day limit should be extended to 28 days - BioNews

Embryology

New Agriculture Scholarship Offered in Honor of the Late Harold Tutvedt – Flathead Beacon

News & FeaturesSeniors at Flathead and Glacier high schools can apply for funding to attend Montana State University College of Agriculture

By Myers Reece // Feb 16, 2021

Seniors at Glacier and Flathead high schools can now apply for a new agricultural college education scholarship named after the late Harold Tutvedt, a well-known West Valley farmer who passed away in 2018.

The $2,000 scholarship will be awarded to a senior who intends to pursue a degree at Montana State Universitys College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, offering students yet another opportunity in a school district already reputed for its robust agricultural curriculum through the H.E. Robinson Agricultural Education Center.

The application deadline for the Harold Tutvedt Memorial Scholarship is March 10. Seniors at either Kalispell high school can apply by contacting their respective college and career center.

Its huge, Brian Bay, a teacher at the Agricultural Education Center in Kalispell, said. A scholarship of this size directly for a student going to Montana State University is significant. It will make a huge difference for whoever gets it.

The MSU College of Ag is known nationally, he added, and theres the history of the Tutvedts and the role they have played in our community and agriculture. Its really neat.

The ag center welcomes between 300 and 350 students each year, including 21 seniors this year who will be the target audience of the new scholarship, although a number of them have already committed to plans and schools other than MSU, Bay said.

The center opened its doors in 1978, but Flathead High School has had an agricultural program since 1917, while Future Farmers of America has been established in town since 1930 and high school students have farmed the land on which the ag center sits since the 1940s, including generations of Tutvedts who attended Kalispell public schools.

Harold would have farmed this ground when he was a student, Bay said.

Harold Tutvedt, the second child of Norwegian immigrants, was born in a leased farmhouse with no power or running water off Clark Drive in West Valley in 1929 and spent his entire life in agriculture, moving from farming with horses to driving the big green auto steer combines that he loved so much, according to his 2018 obituary. He attended Flathead High School and Montana State University.

Mike Kelly, director of the Flathead High career center, said the Tutvedt family came up with the idea of an agricultural education scholarship following Harolds death. Kelly, who helps kids devise their post-high school steps, notes that agricultural education has grown significantly over the years into areas including embryology, soil science, innovative concepts in animal husbandry and raising plants, and more.

The field has broadened quite a bit to include many things other than the stereotype of what many think of farming, planting crops, raising cattle, dairy farming, riding a tractor, he said. Theres certainly all those components, but there are a lot of other things that go along with it.

The scholarship comes as the ag centers hundreds of high school students are newly enjoying updated facilities, funded by the passage of a school bond package in 2016. Bay called the renovations terrific.

Were so pleased with this place, he said.

People interested in contributing to the scholarship fund can make donations to the Harold Tutvedt Memorial Scholarship C/O Blue Mountain Community Foundation, P.O. Box 603, Walla Walla, WA 99362.

For questions about the application process, contact Mike Kelly at (406) 751-3661 or kellymi@sd5.k12.mt.us.

If you enjoy stories like this one, please consider joining the Flathead Beacon Editors Club. For as little as $5 per month, Editors Club members support independent local journalism and earn a pipeline to Beacon journalists. Members also gain access to http://www.beaconeditorsclub.com, where they will find exclusive content like deep dives into our biggest stories and a behind-the-scenes look at our newsroom.Join Now

Read the original here:
New Agriculture Scholarship Offered in Honor of the Late Harold Tutvedt - Flathead Beacon

Embryology

‘I split with my ex then chaos set in’: Why we need to talk about the flux years – Metro.co.uk

Nell Frizzells new book explores the chaotic years between adolescence and midlife (Picture: Bekky Lonsdale/Getty)

At 28, my life went into a totally catastrophic period of personal and professional chaos, of change and transformation, says Nell Frizzell, now 36.

I threw away the security of a relationship, confronted the finite nature of my fertility, acted at times with careless depravity and took on, eventually, a whole new identity.

The future shed pictured with her ex, with whom shed split after six years, was replaced with the myriad possibilities of single life but it also emphasised the metaphorical ticking clock.

If she did want a baby, then when, how, why and with whom?

Adolescence and menopause encapsulate monumental periods in life but theres no term to describe what happens in between. Its why writer Nell set herself the bold task of creating a linguistic shorthand for these nameless but equally fundamental years. She settled on the flux.

I like that it captures the psychological chaos, physical bodily elimination and emotional fluctuation that happens between adolescence and midlife, says Nell, who explores the flux in her new book, The Panic Years: Dates, Doubts And The Mother Of All Decisions.

She highlights that the choices we make from our twenties to our early forties are often heavily influenced by one question: whether we should have a baby. This impacts on all aspects of our life, including dating, which job to do and where to live.

Nells own flux was triggered by the end of that six-year relationship. Already an unduly catastrophic thinker, the sense of panic was amplified by the fact her mum went through the menopause at 40.

Every month Id get my period and think, Thats another potential future gone, and I didnt know how many of those eggs I had left, but Im glad it pushed me to make a decision, says Nell, who now lives in Oxford with partner Nick and their three-year-old son.

Motherhood didnt herald an epiphany for Nell but it did prompt her to ponder the extent to which we endlessly ruminate about becoming a parent.

Sometimes the further away you get from something, the easier it is to see the towering thing above you, and the further I got away from 28, the easier it was to see the looming presence motherhood has always had in my life, she says.

Not only what it meant and the compromises Id need to make but the way the men in my life had been conditioned to think about fertility, the way we talk about female desire and maternal love. All those things deeply altered my life in a way I wasnt prepared for.

Throughout the book Nell gamely shares brutally honest anecdotes from her own flux, including the hopeful but doomed flings, the anguish of birthdays, weddings and baby showers, as well as her own messy journey to becoming a mum. But she also examines the wider societal issues.

I still find contraception a deeply troubling and sexist phenomenon, she says. The average cost of childcare in this country is unsustainable and the rate of successful interventions in terms of egg freezing and IVF are much lower than I thought.

On those two points, the numbers speak for themselves: it costs 6,800 per year for a part-time nursery place, says The Money Advice Service, and around four in five cases are unsuccessful, according to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

All these things can look like separate quandaries but they all feed into the same giant flux so of course we have a hard time trying to navigate them simultaneously, says Nell. And Im a white, educated woman operating from a huge sense of privilege. What must it be like to be a person of colour or low income, a single parent, or from the LGBTQ community?

While Nells flux ultimately led to a baby, the book isnt about that one narrative.

I hope child-free people, by choice or otherwise, can find things in it that really speak to them because whats surprised me is that the people Id least expect, who are leading very different lives to me, told me they can identify with the things Im describing, she says.

Nells only just started having frank discussions with her friends about this topic.

Im the queen of oversharing, someone who never shies away from the more revolting sides of having a human body, but I shied away, and still do, from saying to people, Do you want to have a baby? Its such a loaded question, she says.

Only certain people have the right to ask that question and in certain circumstances but I do think its a conversation people should feel more able to have. It feels like we all skirt around something thats quite fundamental to the way we live our life.

To hold our feelings up to the scrutiny of the world can be scary but its healthy to say what you want.

Nell Frizzells The Panic Years is out now

Do you have a story to share?

Get in touch by emailing MetroLifestyleTeam@Metro.co.uk.

MORE : The Sex Column: Do I tell her how inexperienced I really am?

MORE : Are you suffering from FODA Fear Of Dating Again?

MORE : Can we learn to be more resilient?

Metro newspaper is still available for you to pick up every weekday morning or you can download our app for all your favourite news, features, puzzles... and the exclusive evening edition!

Download the Metro newspaper app here.

Link:
'I split with my ex then chaos set in': Why we need to talk about the flux years - Metro.co.uk

Embryology

The COVID Vaccine: A Shot in the Arm for Fertility Treatment? – BioNews

8 February 2021

The rollout of COVID vaccination programmes has brought with it a renewed hope of a return to normality but has also raised questions about the impact of vaccinationon fertility treatment and pregnancy.

To help explain and clarify the advice to fertility patients and clinicians, and to fight misinformation spreading online, the Progress Educational Trust (PET) the charity that publishes BioNew held an online event.

'The COVID-19 Vaccine: A Shot in the Arm for Fertility Treatment?' was chaired by PET's director Sarah Norcross, and featured speakers outlining the approaches taken by UK, EU and US bodies.

Professor Jason Kasraie, chair of the Association of Reproductive and Clinical Scientists (ARCS), gave the first presentation an overview of the UK guidance issued by ARCS and the British Fertility Society (BFS). He emphasised that there is no known risk in giving non-live vaccines to pregnant women or those looking to conceive.

ARCS and BFS say there is no need to avoid pregnancy after vaccination, and women who would benefit from the vaccine should receive it without compromising their planned fertility treatment. However, as with any medical treatment, patients should be involved in the decisionmaking process. Pointing out the prevalence of fearmongering misinformation online, Professor Kasraie stressed the importance of being careful about how risk is communicated, when there is currently no cause for fear.

The next speaker, Dr Anna Veiga, coordinator of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE)'s COVID-19 Working Group, explained that ESHRE's relatively cautious position relates to an absence of concrete evidence.

ESHRE has decided not to offer a universal recommendation on whether or not men and women attempting assisted conception should get vaccinated before starting treatment, and instead emphasises the importance of weighing up the factors that are relevant to each individual patient. ESHRE recommends postponing the start of fertility treatment for at least a few days after the vaccine, to allow the immune response to settle.

Regarding vaccination and pregnancy, ESHRE suggests that pregnant women should not be vaccinated unless they are at particularly high risk. ESHRE also suggeststhat if a woman becomes pregnant after receiving the first vaccine dose then, then unless the woman is at particularly high risk the second dose should be delayed until the pregnancy is over. There is no advice to avoid pregnancy after vaccination.

Despite this cautious approach towards the vaccine, Dr Veiga noted that pregnant women have been shown to be at higher risk of developing severe COVID-19 compared to non-pregnant women. Women may therefore still decide to go ahead with vaccination, since the benefits of protection from COVID-19 might outweigh any theoretical risks from, vaccination.

Dr Sigal Klipstein, member of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine (ASRM)'s COVID-19 Task Force, explained that the ASRM's more permissive advice is based on assessing the known and very real risks of COVID-19 alongside the largely theoretical risks of the vaccine. As such, the ASRM recommends vaccination to everyone who can access the vaccine whether before or during pregnancy on the grounds that the benefits outweigh the risks.

To emphasise this point, Dr Klipstein gave the example of Israel's decision to make pregnant women a priority group for vaccination, due to their increased risk of developing severe COVID-19. Dr Klipstein further emphasised the important role of fertility specialists in promoting vaccination to their patients, their communities and the public, so as to counter worrying trends of vaccine hesitancy.

During the event, attendees were polled on whether they thought a consensus was needed between all relevant professional bodies on the COVID vaccine and fertility treatment. A clear majority (77 percent) voted yes, prompting Norcross to ask the panel if there was any hope of a consensus being worked out. All three speakers agreed that a uniform message would help avoid confusion and vaccine hesitancy, but that it would be difficult to achieve a consensus, due to each national body's need to follow the formal position of their country's health authorities. The speakers did, however, note that there was significant agreement on key points.

While most of the discussion focused on vaccination of women and the impact on pregnancy, there was an audience question about the impact vaccination might have on sperm quality. The panel agreed that there is no suggestion of risk to the quality of sperm, but that it might be beneficial for men to leave some time between vaccination and fertility treatment, simply to avoid any temporary side effects of the vaccine (such as a fever) having an effect on sperm production. However, it remains prudent for men to get vaccinated before a planned conception, not least so that they avoid the risk of transmitting COVID-19 to the pregnant woman.

Several audience questions addressed the lack of evidence available on the impact of the vaccine. The panel agreed that while there is currently little evidence on the impact of the vaccines on IVF treatment, gamete donation or the health of newborns, there is new information coming in constantly and at unprecedented speeds. Studies of long-term effects will by their nature take time, but there is reassurance to be drawn from studies undertaken on other non-live vaccines.

Dr Klipstein warned against the temptation of an overabundance of caution in the absence of data, as this could end up forcing women into an impossible scenario of weighing up the risk posed by COVID-19 to their own health with any theoretical risks to their baby from the vaccine. Professor Kasraie observed that IVF patients are known to be especially anxious during the pregnancy, so placing them in a position where they have to shield throughout the nine months of pregnancy for fear of catching COVID-19 could exacerbate their isolation and anxiety.

Overall, the event showed that despite some differences in the advice given by UK, EU and US bodies, there is significant agreement on the important role of vaccination in protecting the health of fertility patients and professionals alike. Evidence of the harm that can be caused by COVID-19 during pregnancy is clear, known and real. Evidence of harm that can be caused by COVID vaccines is at best theoretical and unsupported by evidence. Certain precautions may be taken in the absence of data, but it is important to ensure that such precautions are not taken to be an indication that there is a known risk.

PET is grateful to the Edwards and Steptoe Research Trust Fund, the British Fertility Society, the Bristol Fertility Clinic and CooperSurgical for supporting this event.

See the rest here:
The COVID Vaccine: A Shot in the Arm for Fertility Treatment? - BioNews

Embryology

TMRW Launches World’s First Automated Platform to Safeguard Millions of Frozen Eggs and Embryos Used in IVF – PRNewswire

NEW YORK, Feb. 3, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- TMRW Life Sciences(TMRW) announces that it has launched the world's first automated cryo specimen management solution for embryos andeggsused in in vitro fertilization (IVF). TMRW's proprietary platform has been installed in multiple premier fertility clinics in the U.S., launching the modern era of integrated, software-enabled management of the millions of eggs and embryos central to modern IVF.

The TMRW platform arrives at a critical moment: during the COVID pandemic, with record numbers of patients initiating egg freezing, and some U.S. fertility clinics reporting as much as 50% increases in cycle volume over the same period last year. Clinics accounting for more than 30% of all U.S. IVF cycles are scheduled to install the TMRW platform in 2021.

The CDC estimates that by 2025,22 million fertilitypatients globally will require egg and embryo storage.TMRW's platform offers a groundbreaking answer to a challenge the global IVF community is now facing: how to safely manage, track and store hundreds of millions of frozen eggs and embryos.

Until today, the IVF community worldwide has employed the same manualstorage methods developed over 40 years ago.This system is characterized by the handwritten labeling of specimens and a reliance on analog tracking and record keeping. In addition, there has been no cloud-based, electronic monitoring, or sensor technologydeployed to safeguard the containers holding the eggs and embryos which must be kept consistently at cryogenic temperatures.

"No one undertaking IVF should ever have to worry about the safety of their embryos and eggs," said Joshua Abram, Founder and Co-CEO of TMRW. "300 million babies are expected to be born via IVF globally by 2100. With TMRW we have brought the safe storage and management of life's most precious cells into the 21st Century."

Each TMRW platform safeguards the fertility specimens of as many as 4,000 patients. The system brings an unprecedented level of safety to every phase of the management of eggs and embryos, from accurate identification and chain of custody of every patient's samples via radio frequency identification (RFID) tracking, to continuous monitoring through TMRW's data-encrypted and HIPAA-compliant software. Taken together, TMRW's solutionprovides patients and clinicians alike transparency and peace of mind about the careof their eggs and embryos.

Vios Fertility Institute is the first fertility clinic to bring TMRW's platform online.

"As we see a substantial increase in patients seeking IVF and egg freezing -- up 41% percent and 31.5%, respectively, over last year -- I am thrilled that we are the first fertility clinic in the world to offer TMRW to its patients," said Dr. Angie Beltsos, CEO & Chief Medical Officer of Vios. "IVF patients and those wanting to preserve their fertility deserve the most sophisticated care available, and there is nothing more powerful than combining our top-notch embryology services with TMRW's game-changing technology. TMRW gives doctors, embryologists, and patients great reassurance."

Chicago couple Mayrav Dolgin and Renee Genova have received fertility treatments at Vios resulting in two healthy sons -- Jonah (age 2) and Elan (age 6 months). They are the first patients to have their remaining frozen embryos stored with the TMRW platform.

"The fertility journey can be difficult enough without having to worry about the safety of your embryos," explained Dolgin. "Mayrav and I were ecstatic to learn that ours would be the first to be stored in TMRW," added Genova. "Knowing that our remaining embryos will be cared for and looked after with the most advanced technology available gives us tremendous reassurance that our ability to continue building our family in the future is protected."

The TMRW platform key proprietary features include:

TMRW is expanding globally and will be in UK-based fertility clinics in the summer of 2021.

About TMRW Life Sciences:TMRW has created the world's first automated platform designed specifically for cryo-management of eggs and embryos used in IVF. TMRW's RFID-enabled, complete digital chain of custody SaaS technology radically improves on the error-prone manual and analog methods that have gone unchanged throughout the history of IVF, significantly reducing the chances of implantation mix-ups or loss of eggs and embryos. The TMRW team includes many of the world's most celebrated innovators in fertility, embryology, cryo-management, automation, software development and robotics to name a few of the disciplines involved. TMRW's co-founders, Joshua Abram, Alan Murray, and Dr. Jeffrey Port, are serial tech and life sciences entrepreneurs. Their immediate prior ventures sold for a combined sum of more than $1 billion. For more information, please visit TMRW.org.

About ViosFertility Institute:Established in 2015, Vios Fertility Institute is one of the fastest growing fertility clinics in the U.S., with 11 locations in the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Louis regions. Woman owned, the Vios mission is to help patients find their way to fertility health with the highest chances of success. Vios offers innovative, scientific, and cutting-edge treatment options along with an unparalleled patient experience. http://www.ViosFertility.com

Media Contact:Emily GrosserDini von Mueffling Communications[emailprotected]757-645-5190

SOURCE TMRW Life Sciences

See the original post here:
TMRW Launches World's First Automated Platform to Safeguard Millions of Frozen Eggs and Embryos Used in IVF - PRNewswire

Embryology

PLU’s Lathiena Nervo discusses her work and being named one of the 1,000 inspiring Black scientists in America – The Suburban Times

By Zach Powers, Marketing & Communications.

Pacific Lutheran University Assistant Professor of Biology Lathiena Nervo was recently named one of Cell Mentors 1,000 inspiring Black scientists in America. A developmental biologist in her second year at PLU, Nervo is equally passionate about teaching, biological research, and increasing diverse representation in science. She recently spoke with PLU News about her recent honor, her motivations as an educator and scientist, and her experience thus far at PLU.

Congratulations on being included on Cell Mentors list of 1,000 inspiring Black scientists in America. What did that mean to you?

It meant a lot. I was really surprised to end up on that list. Theres some pretty impressive people on that list that are doing amazing work in their respective fields, so I was incredibly honored and really humbled to be on it. It was also really nice to see people on that list that I know and that Ive met, either at conferences or I actually went to grad school with, or who are in my little niche of developmental biology. Being a Black woman in science, and being a hyper minority in that sense, sometimes you tend to feel very isolated and alone. But this list made me think of all the different individuals across the country and made me feel like we are a tight-knit community.

How has being such a hyper minority in your field impacted your experience as a student, graduate student and now as a university faculty member?

It has had a major impact and still continues to have one. You are pretty much constantly fighting against stereotype threat and wanting to be valued for what you do and not necessarily what you look like. It definitely has impacted the focus on my work in a way, because I was raised with a certain set of values I like to bring those to my work as well.

What are you most interested in as a biologist?

I am a developmental biologist. The thing I love about developmental biology is that youre a jack of all trades. Its a mix of molecular, genetics, cell biologies, anatomy and physiology. Its all these different biology disciplines merged into one. A few decades ago it would have been called embryology.

Im really interested in cell interactions and how cells actually communicate with each other while an embryo is developing. And so, how do they communicate with each other to create tissues? We have all these different tissues within our bodies that could be grouped into four categories. You have muscle, nerve, connective tissue, and epithelial tissue. Im really interested in how the embryo decides to make all those different tissues.

At what point in your journey as a student did you realize that biology was something special for you?

I think it was my senior year of high school. That was the first year my high school actually had AP Biology. I had an amazing teacher who taught the class, essentially, like a college course. She gave us a lot of freedom, she let us guide how we could learn, what was best for us. Also let us guide what we covered, which was fantastic. That class is what really opened my eyes to majoring in biology.

College was always important to my parents. Neither of them went to college and it was always clear growing up that the expectation was that we were going to go to college. But during high school, I didnt have any idea what I was going to go to college for and what my passion was for, until that AP Biology class.

What made you decide on research and teaching, as opposed to medical school or the many other careers a biology student can pursue?

Its a roundabout story, but essentially I thought I wanted to go to medical school. I wanted to be a pediatrician, and that was to be my focus. But then I had a research experience as an undergraduate that really opened my eyes to what experimentation is, how to think about big questions, and how to figure out what experiments will help get you closer to the answers to those questions.

Then, after finishing my undergrad, I started teaching high school biology and I realized how much I loved to teach. I taught at a Catholic school with a very small minority population. I didnt realize going into it how much my presence would mean to those students.

How did teaching in that high school shape how you teach now?

Well, soon after I started there I had a lot of the underrepresented minority students in my classroom after school and during lunch. Just wanting to talk about their experiences in life. For many of them, I was their first Black teacher that theyve ever had, and I taught 10th graders. That experience really opened my eyes to what Ias a Black woman in science and as an educatorrepresent. That was the moment where I started thinking that I really love science and I wanted to do experimentation, but I also wanted to focus on mentorship. I wanted to be a mentor, I wanted to increase underrepresented minority participation in science, and get those students loving science. And that was the spark that started that. I then worked for a couple of years for a NASA-funded program, where that was actually their focusto increase the underrepresented groups participation in science.

I realized that I wanted to teach and conduct research at a primarily undergraduate institution. So I went into grad school with that goal in mind. I was a non-traditional student, going back several years after completing my bachelors degree. I received grants through my graduate school department and the US Department of Education. I participated in a postdoctoral fellowship thats specific for teaching scientists to be better educators. When I finished my PhD, I went into that fellowship program. And now Im excited to be here at PLU, focussed on these three core elements of teaching, increasing representation in my field, and conducting research.

Coming to PLU from the East Coast is a big switch. What made you pick PLU?

One of the things that really struck me when I researched the biology department and interviewed here was the curriculum. Its essentially the curriculum I wish I had as an undergraduate, where students are really able to create their own focus. The way the program is organized gives students a lot of freedom to choose what direction they want to go. If they have more interest in the really small things, like molecular work, or virology, or microbiology, they can take classes on that. If they want to go bigger with the systems, in terms of ecology and organisms, they can do that too, and everything in between. I found it really amazing that students were able to create their own focus in that way.

I also had a really good experience talking with students. I had lunch with three students during my interview here, and all of them were double majoring. At my undergrad institution thats not a thing that was really possible for biology majors because the curriculum was so rigid. The fact that PLU students were still able to pursue their interests outside of biology, and get a degree and take classes they wanted outside of that, was incredibly impressive to me. I just thought, theyre doing something right here, in a pedagogical sense. And that was one of the things that I found really exciting about coming to PLU.

Were there any other aspects of the job that drew you to PLU?

The individual faculty members that I talked with during my phone interview, and then my in-person interview, seemed so supportive. I was really looking for that in the next stage of my career. I really wanted a department that was collegial, that didnt just talk about being supportive, actually was supportive and was willing to step in and help in any way they could.

I was also really impressed with the multiple mentorship programs we have for first-year and early-career faculty members. Thats not something most institutions have, not even some of the other big name liberal arts schools that I was interviewed at. And those have been really helpful in my first few semesters here.

Whats been your first impression of the PLU students youve had in class?

I think PLU students are really well-rounded and theyre really thinking about their position in their communities and in the world. A lot of them have really amazing goals, beyond just, Oh, I want to be a biologist. Theyre thinking about their impact in their communities and in the larger sense, which is incredible.

I would also say theyre really interested in learning. Its not just about end goals for them. I dealt with students at other institutions where some classes are just boxes they need to check off, just to earn their bachelors degree. I dont get that same sense at all from PLU students. Theyre really focused on learning and really show their interest in the subject. Im really impressed by that.

The post PLUs Lathiena Nervo discusses her work and being named one of the 1,000 inspiring Black scientists in America was first publishing on the Pacific Lutheran University website.

Related

Read the rest here:
PLU's Lathiena Nervo discusses her work and being named one of the 1,000 inspiring Black scientists in America - The Suburban Times