Dataset Information

Why the Medical Research Council refused Robert Edwards and Patrick Steptoe support for research on human conception in 1971.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In 1971, Cambridge physiologist Robert Edwards and Oldham gynaecologist Patrick Steptoe applied to the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) for long-term support for a programme of scientific and clinical 'Studies on Human Reproduction'. The MRC, then the major British funder of medical research, declined support on ethical grounds and maintained this policy throughout the 1970s. The work continued with private money, leading to the birth of Louise Brown in 1978 and transforming research in obstetrics, gynaecology and human embryology.

Methods

The MRC decision has been criticized, but the processes by which it was reached have yet to be explored. Here, we present an archive-based analysis of the MRC decision.

Results

We find evidence of initial support for Edwards and Steptoe, including from within the MRC, which invited the applicants to join its new directly funded Clinical Research Centre at Northwick Park Hospital. They declined the offer, preferring long-term grant support at the University of Cambridge, and so exposed the project to competitive funding mode. Referees and the Clinical Research Board saw the institutional set-up in Cambridge as problematic with respect to clinical facilities and patient management; gave infertility a low priority compared with population control; assessed interventions as purely experimental rather than potential treatments, and so set the bar for safety high; feared fatal abnormalities and so wanted primate experiments first; and were antagonized by the applicants' high media profile. The rejection set MRC policy on IVF for 8 years, until, after the birth of just two healthy babies, the Council rapidly converted to enthusiastic support.

Conclusions

This analysis enriches our view of a crucial decision, highlights institutional opportunities and constraints and provides insight into the then dominant attitudes of reproductive scientists and clinicians towards human conception research.

SUBMITTER: Johnson MH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2922998 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The Medical Research Council grading system has served through decades for the evaluation of muscle strength and has been recognized as a cardinal feature of daily neurological, rehabilitation and general medicine examination of patients, despite being respectfully criticized due to the unequal width of its response options. No study has systematically examined, through modern psychometric approach, whether physicians are able to properly use the Medical Research Council grades. The objectives of this study were: (i) to investigate physicians' ability to discriminate among the Medical Research Council categories in patients with different neuromuscular disorders and with various degrees of weakness through thresholds examination using Rasch analysis as a modern psychometric method; (ii) to examine possible factors influencing physicians' ability to apply the Medical Research Council categories through differential item function analyses; and (iii) to examine whether the widely used Medical Research Council 12 muscles sum score in patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy would meet Rasch model's expectations. A total of 1065 patients were included from nine cohorts with the following diseases: Guillain-Barré syndrome (n = 480); myotonic dystrophy type-1 (n = 169); chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (n = 139); limb-girdle muscular dystrophy (n = 105); multifocal motor neuropathy (n = 102); Pompe's disease (n = 62) and monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined related polyneuropathy (n = 8). Medical Research Council data of 72 muscles were collected. Rasch analyses were performed on Medical Research Council data for each cohort separately and after pooling data at the muscle level to increase category frequencies, and on the Medical Research Council sum score in patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy. Disordered thresholds were demonstrated in 74-79% of the muscles examined, indicating physicians' inability to discriminate between most Medical Research Council categories. Factors such as physicians' experience or illness type did not influence these findings. Thresholds were restored after rescoring the Medical Research Council grades from six to four options (0, paralysis; 1, severe weakness; 2, slight weakness; 3, normal strength). The Medical Research Council sum score acceptably fulfilled Rasch model expectations after rescoring the response options and creating subsets to resolve local dependency and item bias on diagnosis. In conclusion, a modified, Rasch-built four response category Medical Research Council grading system is proposed, resolving clinicians' inability to differentiate among its original response categories and improving clinical applicability. A modified Medical Research Council sum score at the interval level is presented and is recommended for future studies in Guillain-Barré syndrome and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy.

Project description:BackgroundNovel technical solutions are called for to promote home-based exercise among community-dwelling stroke survivors supported by their caregivers. Lack of resources and knowledge about how to accomplish it, has been demonstrated. The objective of this study is to describe in detail the development of ActivABLES, a technical intervention to promote home-based exercise and physical activity engagement of community-dwelling stroke survivors with support from their caregivers.MethodsThe technical development process of ActivABLES was guided by the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for development and evaluation of complex interventions as well as by principles of human-centred design and co-design. The main steps included: (1) Synthesis of evidence supporting the inclusion of balance exercises, mobility and walking exercises and exercises for the upper arm; (2) Implementation of initial user studies with qualitative data collection from individual interviews with stroke survivors, and focus group interviews with caregivers and health professionals; (3) Preliminary testing of eight prototypes with seven stroke survivors and their caregivers.ResultsAfter the preliminary testing of eight prototypes, four prototypes were not further developed whereas four prototypes were modified further. In addition, two new prototypes were developed, leaving six prototypes for further modification: 1) ActivFOAM for balance exercises, 2) WalkingSTARR to facilitate walking, 3) ActivBALL for hand exercises, 4) ActivSTICKS for upper arm exercises, and 5) ActivLAMP and 6) ActivTREE which both give visual feedback on progress of daily exercise and physical activities. ActivFOAM, ActivBALL and ActivSTICKS are all connected to a tablet where exercise instructions are given. All the exercise prototypes can be connected to ActivLAMP and ActivTREE to give feedback on how much exercise the user has done. Settings can be individualised and recommended daily time and/or repetition can easily be changed as the user progresses to higher activity levels.ConclusionsThe development process of ActivABLES was guided by the principles of human-centred design, with iterative testing of future users, and by the MRC framework of complex intervention, with a repeated process of development and testing. This process resulted in six prototypes which are available for feasibility testing among a small group of community-dwelling stroke survivors.

Project description:ObjectiveThe 1991 Medical Research Council (MRC) Study compared seizure relapse for seizure-free patients randomized to withdraw vs continue of antiseizure medications (ASMs). We re-analyzed this trial to account for crossover between arms using contamination-adjusted intention to treat (CA ITT) methods, to explore dose-response curves, and to validate predictions against external data. ITT assesses the effect of being randomized to withdraw, as-treated analysis assesses the confounded effect of withdrawing, but CA ITT assesses the unconfounded effect of actually withdrawing.MethodsCA ITT involves two stages. First, we used randomized arm to predict whether patients withdrew their ASM (logistic) or total daily ASM dose (linear). Second, we used those values to predict seizure occurrence (logistic).ResultsThe trial randomized 503 patients to withdraw and 501 patients to continue ASMs. We found that 316 of 376 patients (88%) who were randomized to withdraw decreased their dose at every pre-seizure visit, compared with 35 of 424 (8%) who were randomized to continue (p < .01). Adjusted odds ratios of a 2-year seizure for those who withdrew vs those who did not was 1.3 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.9-1.9) in the as-treated analysis, 2.5 (95% CI 1.9-3.4) comparing those randomized to withdraw vs continue for ITT, and 3.1 (95% CI 2.1-4.5) for CA ITT. Probabilities (withdrawal vs continue) were 28% vs 24% (as-treated), 40% vs 22% (ITT), and 43% vs 21% (CA ITT). Differences between ITT and CA ITT were greater when varying the predictor (reaching zero ASMs) or outcome (1-year seizures). As-treated dose-response curves demonstrated little to no effects, but larger effects in CA ITT analysis. MRC data overpredicted risk in Lossius data, with moderate discrimination (areas under the curve ~0.70).SignificanceCA ITT results (the effect of actually withdrawing ASMs on seizures) were slightly greater than ITT effects (the effect of recommend withdrawing ASMs on seizures). How these findings affect clinical practice must be individualized.