Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Good SAT Scores Lead To Higher Egg Donor Prices

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the golden-parachute-eggs dept.

Biotech 175

alphadogg writes "Analysis from Georgia Institute of Technology of college newspaper egg donor ads showed that higher payments offered to egg donors correlated with higher SAT scores. 'Holding all else equal, an increase of 100 SAT points in the score of a typical incoming student increased the compensation offered to oocyte donors at that college or university by $2,350,' writes researcher Aaron D. Levine in a paper published in the March-April issue of the Hastings Center Report. Concerned about eggs being treated as commodities, and worried that big financial rewards could entice women to ignore the risks of the rigorous procedures required for harvesting, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine discourages compensation based on donors' personal characteristics. The society also discourages any payments over $10,000."

cancel ×

175 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31660654)

duh

Re:duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31660686)

I'm betting you didn't get close to a 1400 on your SAT.

Re:duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31660730)

duh

I like fried eggs with a splash of sperm for breakfast.

Is this news (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660714)

I thought this was the case with sperm donors for over 20 years. I'm surprised it took so long to apply it to the ova ... I mean other side of the transaction.

What about men? (1)

Anitech (1208966) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660726)

Do they offer men bonuses for high SAT scores?

Re:What about men? (2, Funny)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660756)

If they offer you $35,000 for all of your eggs, take the offer.

Re:What about men? (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660758)

Men they ask "where did you get these eggs from".

Re:What about men? (1)

vekrander (1400525) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660838)

There actually are places out there where you can get paid a premium on your donation if you fulfill certain characteristics. While SAT scores don't typically fetch higher prices, a man's profession can fetch them higher values particularly if they are a doctor or lawyer. Racial or ethnic background can add to the value as the price paid for the specimen depends on what has a high demand at the bank.

DON'T DO IT (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31660970)

DO NOT donate sperm, it can bite you in the ass later. There have been court cases where the mother who was artificially inseminated with donated sperm was later able to track down the man who donated the sperm, and successfully sue him for child support.

This is just another example of where the family court system is biased against men. Women automatically get custody of children, or more custody than the man, unless they are on crack or something and this can be proven. Alimony is a total insult; it's the notion that a woman has a legal right to get used to a particular lifestyle that her husband provided, and therefore her former husband has to pay her money after the divorce to make sure she doesn't have to get used to what her income alone can provide. If that was really fair, the woman would have to continue having sex with the man after the divorce, since that was the lifestyle he was used to when married, but fairness is not the goal here. Imagine a couple suing the female egg donor for child support after using her egg to produce a baby. It would be laughed out of court. But women have successfully sued men for child support for donating sperm.

Warning to men - it might look like easy money for something you do anyway (masturbating) but seriously, it's a bad idea.

Re:DON'T DO IT (3, Informative)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661162)

You just need a signed document saying so.

Most of those cases have been closed now, in favour of the men not paying child support anymore.

Nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31661562)

You just need a signed document saying so.

Most of those cases have been closed now, in favour of the men not paying child support anymore.

Nothing signed by anyone today, can bind to a person created tomorrow. If the woman who gives birth to a child of donated sperm and her spouse die, the state can and will come after the sperm donor for child support.

What a lot of sperm banks use instead, is basically an insurance policy against successful litigation. As long as the insurance company (which may be the sperm bank itself), doesn't go under, you're safe.

Re:DON'T DO IT (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661698)

He might be referring to cases in the UK. As I understand there have been cases where the CSA has chosen to set aside a prior agreement (for example in a divorce where property/shares/a cash lump sum is given as a one-off payment in lieu of ongoing payments - a so-called "clean break") when the recipient pisses it all up the wall and ends up on the dole.

No, don't be silly, the original donor doesn't get the house back. He (or she) isn't a banker or a Lloyd's name!

Re:DON'T DO IT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31661918)

But not all, and even not all with signed documents. Not in the UK, US or Australia.

Don't fuck with the family courts. You will lose.

Re:DON'T DO IT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31662074)

Bollocks.

Child support is the right of the child.

Re:DON'T DO IT (1)

PalmKiller (174161) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661572)

If that was really fair, the woman would have to continue having sex with the man after the divorce, since that was the lifestyle he was used to when married

Married men accustomed to regular sex, You are obviously not married.

Re:DON'T DO IT (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31661950)

This joke is so old and tired, put it to bed already.

People in a healthy relationship have sex quite frequently. 75%+ success rate isn't unheard of.

Re:DON'T DO IT (1)

Cili (687222) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662364)

People in a healthy relationship don't need to divorce. And even if they do, they do it amiably.

Re:DON'T DO IT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31661894)

Wasn't "pussy payments" in return for alimony what Chris Rock advocated too in one of his routines? Then again, he has also had something about marriage meaning that sex ends...

Now, on a more serious note. Since I don't see why sperm banks shouldn't be there for those who want them, mechanisms should be in place to ensure that the donor is virtually untraceable. Whilst certain characteristics about the man might be fair to hand out, maybe donations with a note attached containing that anonymous information should be transported between banks on a random basis and without any records kept longer than absolutely necessary. Records about who has donated sperm should also not be kept any longer than necessary. Then tracing would at least cost too much to be worth it for child support. You'd have to employ a private investigator to narrow it down to maybe a few thousand men in the country (all who you can find out have donated and match the rough description) and then test a DNA sample from each one.

Re:DON'T DO IT (3, Interesting)

Pamplona Slowpoke (1130755) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662674)

Alimony is a total insult; it's the notion that a woman has a legal right to get used to a particular lifestyle that her husband provided, and therefore her former husband has to pay her money after the divorce to make sure she doesn't have to get used to what her income alone can provide.

Put the shoe on the other foot. I married my ex right out of college. She went to medical school and I started work doing contract programming starting in 1995. I did really well through Y2K and on into 2003. I quit working when our son was born and she only had 6 months left of a general surgery residency at the Mayo Clinic. Afterwords we moved to her home town in rural Montana. 4 years later she and one of the orthopedic surgeons in town become an item.

During the 9 years she went to medical school and residency I earned $855,000 more than her. The legal term for that is a reduced marital estate due to her deferring income for a greater income in the future.

There is no demand for programmers here in Montana and I am making about 28% what I was able to previously. Do I deserve alimony so I can defer my income for 4 to 6 years to gain a skill that does have demand in here where I live so I can live in the same town as my son? Yes I do.

Re:DON'T DO IT (1)

amplt1337 (707922) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662742)

There have been court cases where the mother who was artificially inseminated with donated sperm was later able to track down the man who donated the sperm, and successfully sue him for child support.

Mmhm. What's the source on this? I remember a case like that happening once in Germany about ten years back, when the sperm donor was a personal friend of the woman receiving the sperm, but that was the only one I ever heard of.

No, about the only thing guys get for it would be (1)

NotSoHeavyD3 (1400425) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661056)

a wedgie and that's not a bonus.

Re:What about men? (2, Funny)

e2d2 (115622) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661154)

It depends. How long is your SAT? If it's over 10 inches then yes.

Re:What about men? (2, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661212)

The numbers are substantially lower across the board, largely because harvesting eggs is an unpleasant business, while harvesting sperm is modestly recreational; but the same general principles apply.

People are generally looking for one of two things(or a combination) in a donor: A) Approximately like them. Unless you want to have the "No, we didn't adopt; but I shoot blanks/am a poison-womb" chat with everybody who sees your children, you usually want a donor or donors who are phenotypically similar to you. B)Superiority. If you get to chose, why not? This tendency is sometimes constrained by point A); but, when it comes right down to it, this sort of "soft" eugenics is hard to argue with, particularly against a parent who wants the best for their child. We know that all sorts of traits, physical and behavioral, are at least modestly heritable, so why not load the dice?

Re:What about men? (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661804)

A) Approximately like them.

That has the interesting supply and demand effect that perhaps, the only people whom can afford such advanced fertility treatments, are those whom are highly paid / highly educated / in certain social classes.

Some trailer park residents with a combined ACT score of 10, might want the whole advanced fertility clinic egg donation thingy with their neighbor whom also coincidentally also achieved a single digit score, but they are not covered for the treatment and certainly don't have cash on the barrel ... so the average test score of actual participants skews upward ...

Re:What about men? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31661808)

Approximately like them. Unless you want to have the "No, we didn't adopt; but I shoot blanks/am a poison-womb" chat with everybody who sees your children, you usually want a donor or donors who are phenotypically similar to you.

Why should people expect their kids to look like them? It's rascalist, that is!

Re:What about men? (1)

AP31R0N (723649) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661904)

i've thought about the egg/sperm donor thing as a sort of experiment in socio-genetics. Instead of having kids with my wife, which would produce another smart honkey but a bit on the short and short sighted side, i would find sperm and egg donors. Each would be a different race from us and each other. Definitely would want donors on the right half of the IQ bell curve. We'd have a smart mixed race kid, who would prolly be good looking.

Re:What about men? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662134)

If the spirit of science moves you, I recommend combining techniques...

Thanks to the, er, miracles of globalization, you can get a surrogate mother in India for $2500 to $6500 [csmonitor.com] . That way you can, at relatively low cost, you can produce numerous donor combinations, without any messy biological involvement on you or your wife's part. The bigger the sample size, the more scientific the science!

Re:What about men? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31662162)

We'd have a smart mixed race kid

So that'd be half Japanese, half Jew?

Common Sense (2, Insightful)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662412)

Unless you want to have the "No, we didn't adopt; but I shoot blanks/am a poison-womb" chat with everybody who sees your children

Or you could actually adopt. That would be the sensible solution.

Re:What about men? (1)

Zero_Independent (664974) | more than 4 years ago | (#31663032)

But it's not their child. If you replace your kid with some else's who is superior, you haven't increased the genetic superiority of your gene lineage. In fact by raising someone else's kid, you're not only terminating your own linage but are actively boosting the propagation of someone else's genes.

Re:What about men? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31662036)

Men don't get crap for sperm unless they're 6'+, physically fit, no diseases or sickness, very high SAT or college stats, and in a high paying profession.

Why? Because there are tons of men who want donate, and almost no women who want to pay.

Let the free market decide (4, Insightful)

cryfreedomlove (929828) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660736)

I don't think society has any legitimate interest at stake here that is not covered by allowing the free market to set prices for human eggs. It should be interesting to see what egg buyers will place real $ value on.

Re:Let the free market decide (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31660898)

[...] allowing the free market to set prices for human eggs. [...]

Right!, trust the majority... we would _never_ get in trouble for that!

Re:Let the free market decide (1)

Bartab (233395) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661372)

I don't think society has any legitimate interest at stake here that is not covered by allowing the free market to set prices for human kidneys. It should be interesting to see what kidney buyers will place real $ value on.

Re:Let the free market decide (2, Insightful)

thesandtiger (819476) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661652)

That might be an interesting argument if human eggs were necessary for the continued health and well-being of an individual, as kidneys are.

It may be disappointing for someone who is infertile to not be able to have a child, but it is by no means lethal; it certainly is lethal to not have a kidney. As a result, allowing market forces to determine which infertile people get to go to extreme lengths to have a child is much more reasonable and fair than allowing market forces to determine who gets to live or die.

Re:Let the free market decide (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662094)

It may be disappointing for someone who is infertile to not be able to have a child, but it is by no means lethal

Thing is some people rather would die early than die childless.

Re:Let the free market decide (1)

thesandtiger (819476) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662924)

"Rather" implies a choice. I'm sure that if I didn't have a working kidney I'd "rather" live, but unfortunately I don't think I'd have much of a choice.

People can learn to live with disappointment, they can't learn to live without kidneys.

Re:Let the free market decide (1)

tmosley (996283) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662380)

Living without a kidney is a lot less lethal than dying in the streets of starvation.

Preventing people (poor or otherwise) from marketing whatever goods or services they have available to them is always harmful. Even child prostitution is often a choice between sex or starvation/neglect.

Re:Let the free market decide (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662740)

If child prostitution is a choice between that and starvation that society has failed. Pure and simple the society that allows that is no better than the pedophiles that use these services.

Re:Let the free market decide (1)

phlinn (819946) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661714)

Well, given the number of people who die each year for the lack of a kidney donation, the fact that one kidney is generally sufficient, I would suggest that allowing people to sell a kidney would be in our overall best interests... I'm awaiting any actual reason other than the 'ick' factor to ban paying kidney donors. There would be a hell of a lot more kidneys available and fewer people dieing if they were sellable.

Re:Let the free market decide (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31662204)

There would be a hell of a lot more kidneys available and fewer people dieing if they were sellable.

Well, fewer deaths if you don't count the poor bastard in China who said something bad about the government and got to "donate" for the good of the Party.

Re:Let the free market decide (1)

tmosley (996283) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662422)

That's not free market. If there were a free market, you wouldn't be getting random organs from China, but you would be harvesting the organ in one room, and implanting it next door, in a nice, clean hospital.

Re:Let the free market decide (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662894)

Apparently it's morally wrong for rich people to get preferential treatment, even if the total number of lives saved by kidney transplants is the same regardless of who gets them.

Re:Let the free market decide (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662828)

I don't think society has any legitimate interest at stake here that is not covered by allowing the free market to set prices for human kidneys. It should be interesting to see what kidney buyers will place real $ value on.

I agree.

Not a new phenomenon (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31660746)

This is a surprise? Just take a look around any big name campus - there will usually be some kind of ads posted looking for egg donors. I'm a student at Columbia University and I've seen posters offering $18,000 for eggs from any Columbia student for years.

I have VERY high SAT scores (5, Funny)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660790)

I called them and asked about what their going rate was for a high-SAT scorer like me, and they offered me $12,000!

Things went badly when I asked if the eggs had to be organic, and what size they should be, and was styrofoam OK or did they prefer paper cartons. Oh, and when they found out I was a guy.

Sexist bastards.

Re:I have VERY high SAT scores (4, Funny)

codeonezero (540302) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660948)

I called them ... Things went badly when ...they found out I was a guy.

I'm amused that they didn't pick up on that until you actually had to tell them you were a guy. ;-)

Re:I have VERY high SAT scores (2, Funny)

Singularity42 (1658297) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661700)

Liar. There are no males on the internet.

They should be smart enough to understand the risk (1)

kg8484 (1755554) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660794)

FTA:

The Harvard Crimson was one of three college newspapers that ran an identical classified ad seeking a woman who fit a narrow profile: younger than 29 with a GPA over 3.5 and an SAT score over 1,400.

Wouldn't one think that someone going to Harvard with a high GPA and SAT score be smart enough to weigh the risks? Furthermore, these aren't desperate people from a starving nation; they are kids going to some of the most prestigious schools in the country.

Re:They should be smart enough to understand the r (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661250)

Wouldn't one think that someone going to Harvard with a high GPA and SAT score be smart enough to weigh the risks?

Smart enough? Possibly, but remember that this guy [wikipedia.org] went to both Yale (BA) and Harvard (MBA). Don't know about his GPA or SAT scores though... or whether that says more/less about him or the schools.

Re:They should be smart enough to understand the r (1)

Aranykai (1053846) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661494)

I might be trolled for this, but he wasn't always a bumbling idiot. Not that I've voted for him or condone his choices but as a younger man, he wasn't what you would call stupid.

Re:They should be smart enough to understand the r (2, Interesting)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661730)

...he wasn't always a bumbling idiot...

I don't know about that. This link, The Resume of George W. Bush (the early years) [monkeydyne.com] , from another follow-up post, would seem to indicate otherwise. I can't authenticate its accuracy, but have seen some of the items listed in other articles.

Re:They should be smart enough to understand the r (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31663000)

Exactly - he got "born again". I think that's fundie code for "remove 2/3rds of your brain so you don't wonder why Jeebus worries so much about teh gheyz and just follow instructions".

Re:They should be smart enough to understand the r (1)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661534)

This is the funny thing. In the "How do I get an entry level programming job" the university you go to seems to make a difference. But when we look at individual cases, we can see clear exceptions where the school does nothing to help the individual. It is only in aggregate that the school's name is valuable. This is partly due to applicant self-selection, and partly do to the entrance process selecting people based on prior performance.

I had the option to go to a school with a minimum requirement of 12 on the ACT, increased to 14 "to stress the importance of academics" or something, coincidentally the same year that they added 2 points to ACT scores pretty much across the board, so my 34 was equivalent to my older brother's 32.

People who don't meet the minimum requirements for Ivy League don't get in... unless your life is exceptional, meaning made up of exceptions.

http://www.monkeydyne.com/bushresume/early.html [monkeydyne.com]

So did they bend the rules to let him in? Did the top-notch universities help him? Did he tarnish the name of those institutions? There is no obvious answer, but it is obvious that universities only hold prestige in aggregate, not in individual cases. And anyone who makes decisions based on the institution attended is a fool.

If you can get in, networking and cronyism are the benefits of Ivy League education, not the value of the education. Secondary is hanging out with people who are as smart as you are, which is easier when you attend a university which suits you.

Re:They should be smart enough to understand the r (1)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661746)

Wouldn't one think that someone going to Harvard with a high GPA and SAT score be smart enough to weigh the risks?

Smart enough? Possibly, but remember that this guy [wikipedia.org] went to both Yale (BA) and Harvard (MBA). Don't know about his GPA or SAT scores though... or whether that says more/less about him or the schools.

It takes some brains to convince everyone that you're stupid, to make them underestimate you, so that behind the scenes you can do whatever you like with little or no scrutiny. It takes brains and a ruthless determination to get your way no matter what it takes, even at the expense of widespread ridicule. It also takes some brains to exploit a climate of fear and use time-tested tactics (such as calling your opponents "unpatriotic") to virtually guarantee that the Congress will pass whatever legistlation you recommend with little or no concern for the Constitution.

It takes brains to do all of this. It also takes a profound lack of wisdom to have the desire to do this. An amount of inhumanity helps, too, for disregarding all the damage (sorry, "collateral damage") such policies have caused. No, G.W. Bush was not stupid, in the same way that serial killers are not stupid. Pathological, lustful for power, indifferent to suffering, and indifferent to our nation's traditions, sure, but not stupid.

Re:They should be smart enough to understand the r (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661958)

No, G.W. Bush was not stupid...

Based on the (unverified) resume for GWB posted in another follow-up (some of which I have read elsewhere), I'd probably believe otherwise. However, his rise to greatness, despite massive, repeated failures, was apparently due to the support of friends, family and those around him, like Cheney.

Re:They should be smart enough to understand the r (2, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662128)

It does take brains, but not necessarily his. I always suspected that pre-2006 Bush was little more than a pawn of Dick Cheney. It was only after the Republican Congressional defeat that he started to defy him (ousting Cheney's old buddy Rumsfeld, taking more moderate stances on Cheney's favorite issues, etc.).

Triumph Of The Nerds (3, Insightful)

Ukab the Great (87152) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660802)

This should lead to geeks lessening jocks' reproductive advantages.

Re:Triumph Of The Nerds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31662098)

I doubt the subset of geeks that are competing with jocks (that is, the male geeks) are going to have a lot of luck selling their eggs. But whatever, let's keep modding you insightful!

Re:Triumph Of The Nerds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31662558)

... into a cup. Thanks for the mental image.

Tuition (2, Insightful)

c++0xFF (1758032) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660818)

Egg donation: yet another way that a high SAT score help you get through college.

Cha-Ching! (3, Funny)

Citizen of Earth (569446) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660834)

Each woman has two ovaries with 300,000 eggs each. At $35,000 per egg, that's $21-billion per woman. You'd think more women would cash in on this.

Re:Cha-Ching! (2, Informative)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660892)

I don't think you donate just one. I think itis $35K per procedure.

Anyone familiar with what is involved with "donating" these eggs?

Re:Cha-Ching! (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31661068)

I don't think you donate just one. I think itis $35K per procedure.

Anyone familiar with what is involved with "donating" these eggs?

It's not like it is for men - wham, bam, checks clears in 6 months man. The donor woman gets drugged with the unfun kinds of drugs - hormones and what not to make her the same batshit crazy menstral cycle as the rich woman. Then, after months of that, they reach up (so to speak) and scoop out as many eggs as they can. They try to implant the rich woman. Lather, rinse, repeat, as needed. You don't get paid until (and if) the rich woman gets knocked up properly. It's pretty messed up. But if the choice is that or a year behind a McD's burger grill...

Re:Cha-Ching! (5, Informative)

bmajik (96670) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661810)

Specifically, the woman will typically be placed on an oral contraceptive that suppresses ovulation to "stabilize" her natural menstrual cycle. Then she will come off it at a known point so that her ovulation can be managed with about a 12 hour accuracy.

During this time, she will typically take drug that stimulates ovarian activity -- Follistim is common -- so that she produces multiple mature egg follicles during a single cycle. She'll typically have a few vaginal ultrasounds during the cycle to estabish follicle count and development. Finally, at the pointed time she'll take a dose of medicine that causes the eggs to be finished/matured/released. The following day she goes in for a procedure where a large syringe punctures the vaginal wall and retreives the eggs.

If you remember nothing else from this writeup, these are the key points:
- woman takes a fuckton of ovary-exploding drugs
- doctor puts enomrous syringe THROUGH THE SIDE OF THE VAGINA

Re:Cha-Ching! (5, Funny)

feepness (543479) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662542)

- doctor puts enomrous syringe THROUGH THE SIDE OF THE VAGINA

Forgive my apparent lack of knowledge, but FOR GOD SAKES ISN'T THERE ANOTHER WAY IN?!!

Re:Cha-Ching! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31662738)

Wouldn't the uterus be a much better choice than just randomly puncturing the vagina? Just sayin'. If the eggs were in the vagina, then I'm thinking you wouldn't need a needle, just a spoon-like device....

Re:Cha-Ching! (1)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661368)

1) Marry chick with high IQ
2) Train her to do whatever you tell her
3) ???
4) Profit!

Gentlemen, I think we've figured out what to put in step 3. Harvest away!!!

Re:Cha-Ching! (1)

ajrs (186276) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661792)

1) Marry chick with high IQ
2) Train her to do whatever you tell her
3) ???
4) Profit!

Gentlemen, I think we've figured out what to put in step 3. Harvest away!!!

I think you'll run into trouble before step 1...

Re:Cha-Ching! (1)

c++0xFF (1758032) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662158)

As the article shows, it only takes a small modification:

1a) Find chicks with high SAT scores
1b) Offer big $$ to marry you

Why discourage this? (3, Insightful)

Dr. Spork (142693) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660924)

I think that the worries expressed betray a double standard. How does it make sense to worry about high-SAT women "ignoring the health dangers" of forced ovulation, when you don't worry about low-SAT women ignoring the same dangers and getting a tenth of the money for the ordeal? To be clear: these people don't want women to stop donating eggs. They don't want high-SAT women donating eggs for a lot of money. But the risk in each donation is the same!

In any case, an egg donor will suddenly get a quick and large pile of money. I think the real question should be: How will the money be spent? If the donor gets $50,000 and uses it to help pay for three semesters of her Princeton tuition, I don't see a problem. If another donor, who is not in college, spends $5,000 on shoes and handbags, I don't see a great deal of good having been done.

I know someone who has donated an egg, and she was actually pretty sick for a part of the procedure. Smart women in Princeton, who have other options, will not want to undergo something like this unless you offer them more money. That just seems like a fact. But if the people who want the eggs have the money, and their satisfaction is increased by the knowledge that their donor is academically talented, and the donor herself will use the money to develop her talents further, it's a clear case of "everyone wins."

So why does the American Society for Reproductive Medicine need to shit on this optimal outcome? I think they should be encouraging it!

Duh (4, Interesting)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660942)

Back in college our daily newspaper had standing offers in the $15-50k range for eggs of a woman above a certain height, below a certain weight, and above a certain SAT score.

Re:Duh (1)

bmajik (96670) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661834)

I am trying to decide if you are being perfectly serious here and exactly on topic, or if this is a witty commentary on "dating" and the commoditization of women -- whereby men know what they are looking for and many talentend and intelligent women focus on leaving college with their Mrs. Degree, as it proves to be more profitable long-term than the diploma the university issues.

Re:Duh (1)

thesandtiger (819476) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662060)

While I can't speak for the person you're responding to, I can say that when I was in college I considered donating eggs. Once I found out what the procedure was I decided not to do it, but I got over a dozen phone calls asking me to reconsider, and each time I was offered more money. The last offer I got was for $37.5K - which still wasn't worth it to me for the whole process I would have had to go through. This was back in 1991, and I imagine the prices have gone up since then.

I'm 5'11", was #150 at the time and in spectacular shape (running!), 1560 SATs, and had a 4.0 GPA. Each of those things was enough to boost the asking price substantially.

Re:Duh (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662598)

Unfortunately we are currently only accepting 6' 120lb 1590 4.2 or better candidates so you will have to breed naturally.

JJ's Fertility and SAT Cram Course (3, Funny)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661004)

It seems ironic that women of higher learning who might, as some suggest, fund their education from their ovaries, would need to go to a fertility clinic after their successful education and careers that kept them way from the maternity ward until their 30s or 40s.

Re:JJ's Fertility and SAT Cram Course (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661876)

It seems ironic that women of higher learning who might, as some suggest, fund their education from their ovaries, would need to go to a fertility clinic after their successful education and careers that kept them way from the maternity ward until their 30s or 40s.

What if they were not planning to have kids? May as well get "something" for those eggs.

So the medical quacks are all bundled up because the "best" chicks get too much money. Little concern that the "not so best" get a fraction of the money. And no care at all that some chicks actually have to pay money to get their tubes tied.

Numbers don't lie but they are vague. (-1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661012)

Aka correlation != causation

People with High SAT scores often get into good colleges... People who get into good colleges get the top choice of jobs... High Egg Downer prices for woman who are more successful over all.

However I am sure person with a high SAT score who dropped out of college flipping burgers is not going to get so much.

Re:Numbers don't lie but they are vague. (3, Insightful)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661114)

Maybe you missed the part about holding everything else equal.

"all else equal, an increase of 100 SAT points in the score of a typical incoming student increased the compensation offered to oocyte donors at that college or university by $2,350"

So I would presume they would compare across the same schools and adjust accordingly.

Re:Numbers don't lie but they are vague. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31661940)

Regression estimates are orthogonal effects, i.e., they are independent of the other factors included in the model. Have you even had a basic statistics class?

Unless you have, why are you statistically critiquing a study that surely several real statisticians already have?

Wait, this sounds like (0)

Virtucon (127420) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661144)

Wait, this sounds like a movie. Two Brothers, betting on the heredity vs. environment thing, something about a dollar... Oh well, this sounds old and lame.

So SAT scores mean what in terms of offspring? That the person had better opportunities to learn? They were cared for and had an environment that fostered education? That they could handle word problems?

What if the consumers buying the egg are morons? Yeah, paying that much for a donor egg would render your intellect questionable. I think, like some of these other posts, that the genetic makeup would be at a premium. I want characteristic X, Y, Z not that it came from a person
with a high SAT. Then again, we can always start a Eugenics War and see if the smart folks prevail. Now for me, I'm looking for:

Cross between Rachquel Welch, Barbara Eden, Anna Nicole Smith and Tylene Buck. And to make it simpler, I'm just looking for manual modes of dealing with my offspring, nothing artificial is required.

Re:Wait, this sounds like (1)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661628)

Yeah, paying that much for a donor egg would render your intellect questionable

Raising a child is an expensive proposition. It's somewhere in the $200k range [babycenter.com] , just for the food, shelter, clothing, education, and medical care for 18 years. Then you toss on all the prenatal, neonatal, and postpartum medical bills, along with college, and it all adds up to a huge pile of money. Further, that assumes nothing goes wrong (no teen pregnancy or delinquency, no serious medical problems). At that point, spending an extra 1% for better genes doesn't seem as extravagant, and is probably a good investment.

All the financial issues aside, parents generally want what's best for their kids, and will go to great lengths for them. If getting an egg donor with good genes offers their kid a promising future, it's something prospective parents will prioritize almost irrationally.

Re:Wait, this sounds like (1)

Virtucon (127420) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661802)

At that point, spending an extra 1% for better genes doesn't seem as extravagant, and is probably a good investment.

So, what makes that extra 1% a better investment if the donor just gets a better SAT? There is No correlation and that's my point. For all you know, if you have the kid and let him sit in front of the TV, eating Cheetos and playing the PS3, he'll probably become one of those bottom 25% achievers. He may get lucky and be a genius, but you don't know that based on the fact that the donor has a high SAT score. It is non-sequitur! I might as well be saying "I go to movies all the time. If you buy my eggs the kid will be able to be a movie critic!"

Now, what's wrong with adopting a child who has direct need, one from a broken home or some other set of unfortunate circumstances. Then nurture the kid, give them a stable home, good schools and spending that $200K+ on them? I'd say that kid would have a chance and at least be able to be in that top quartile of the success chart, not looking for a job at WalMart. That makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than SAT scores being a predictor of progeny intelligence.

What's this worth? (4, Funny)

Trip6 (1184883) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661274)

SATs over 750 each
Certified Mensa IQ
Concert pianist
Well endowed
High metablosim - hint, hint
Blonde, blue eyes

Starting bid: $youcantaffordit

Re:What's this worth? (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661712)

And yet you've thrown gallons of the stuff dried up on a Kleenex straight into the trash... sad, isn't it?

Re:What's this worth? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31661760)

I dunno. How much do you pay him for his services?

Re:What's this worth? (1)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662620)

SATs over 750 each
...
High metablosim

For some strange reason I find myself doubting the veracity of your SAT claims...

Re:What's this worth? (1)

adisakp (705706) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662694)

SATs over 750 each Certified Mensa IQ High metablosim

Can you explain to me what a metablosim is? I must not be the genius you are since I've never heard of that word.

Quality (2, Insightful)

ThePlague (30616) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661300)

You pay for quality, and this is just an example of that. You wouldn't pay $15 for a McD's burger, at least most people wouldn't, but a Red Robin (or similar high end) one could command that sort of price.

I know some people might think that's horrible, but the cold-hard truth is that some people are higher quality than others. We might be equal before the law, and have equal rights, but when people are given a choice in potential breeding partners, they will opt for as high as they can afford. In the social realm, that means relying on their own value as judged by whatever criteria (looks, smarts, social success as measured by wealth, social success as measured by "charm", etc) to get as good a "product" as possible. The pricing in this article just reflects the ability to turn one set of attributes into cash, and people's willingness to pay for certain attributes.

Genetics and prejudice (2)

zero_out (1705074) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661454)

So we know that certain people have higher risks of developing certain diseases based on genetic factors, such as gender (color-blindness in men) or 'race' (Tay-Sachs in Ashkenazi jews). People are even willing to pay more for eggs or sperm from people with high SAT scores or PhD's. Yet, when a Harvard University President suggests that maybe certain aspects of intelligence are based on genetics, it causes an uproar.

I'm not suggesting that a certain race or sex is inferior to another, but why is the mere suggestion that intelligence is based on genetics (and therefore gives inherent benefits to certain genetic groups) considered so taboo? Can't we at least consider, discuss, and perform rigorous research on the subject?

Re:Genetics and prejudice (3, Insightful)

bcmm (768152) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661550)

"Intelligence" is a poorly-defined concept and it is very hard to devise a test which gives fair results regardless of the culture of the subject.

In case you haven't noticed, culture is a pretty significant confounding variable for "race" (which is also a poorly-defined concept).

Signature (1)

wonkavader (605434) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661924)

I am frustrated to note that my Linux box does not allow me to cat /dev/mem

# cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
cat: /dev/mem: Operation not permitted

This means I cannot check for llamas myself, and yet your signature makes me suspicious that my RAM, too, may be full of llamas. This would explain the recent slowness of my box.

Obviously one can't scrub the llamas out of RAM without finding them, but are there any open source programs which encourage the llamas to leave?

Re:Genetics and prejudice (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31661644)

There has been rigorous research on the matter, but the results aren't politically correct so they're considered bogus.

Re:Genetics and prejudice (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661944)

The sensationalist headlines ignore the rigor put into the research.

So do the mouth-breathers who have the headline tattooed under their "88".

Re:Genetics and prejudice (0)

bocin (886008) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662010)

Eugenics is evil. Control of the outcome of birth is only half the means to an unproven end. The other side of the eugenics coin is the control over who is suitable to continue living and who will be weeded out. Eugenics has always used both of these methods to attempt to create the "superman". Beware the folk who promote eugenics. They, in most cases, have delusions of grandeur and feel they alone can make the decisions concerning who lives and who dies.

Re:Genetics and prejudice (1, Troll)

cmdr_tofu (826352) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662960)

Hmm are you talking about the same Harvard president who suggested that the reason there were less postdoc women was because they were innately inferior?
www.dailyprincetonian.com [dailyprincetonian.com]

There are facts that women are under-represented in a lot of careers, particularly engineering, but rather than funding rigorous studies "on whether or not women lack the same mental abilities as men", shouldn't we be looking at social problems? Perhaps those women were told at a young age that they couldn't be good at math, or encouraged to play with dollies while the boys were encouraged play with Legos and blocks. It was only within the last 50 years that women were even let into most rigorous programs (medicine, law, etc). They were often refused on the most flimsy and outright sexist grounds, "Well academically you are overqualified, but we can't admit you because you might get pregnant and then will drop out"

I think history has had enough people trying to argue a scientific basis for discrimination or bias against women and minorities. If you want to do rigorous research, you will have to eliminate social and class variables which is quite impossible.

How horrible is the donation process? (1)

wonkavader (605434) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661852)

My coworker suggests that the process involves a roughly six month process of pretty nasty drugs, which makes the money a lot less attractive.

Are these offers generally for a few eggs, for fifty, for one which implants properly, for one which comes to term, etc?

Irony (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661926)

So they're worried that the smart people are going to act stupid and risk their health when offered an extra $2300?

You can make money, but don't! (2, Interesting)

sarysa (1089739) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662202)

For some weird reason, I'm irked by the standard disclaimer in the article that discourages egg donation for (implied) paying your way through college. Risky as any surgical procedure may be, it's a far cry from any Ayn-Rand-gone-amuk dystopian cliche.

(says one geek with laissez-faire ethics...)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?