next »

[dadams]

New Study released:
Unlike a lot of scientific literature that cannot be accessed without paying a fee, this one is free at:
http://familyscholars.org/
It is the largest study of it's kind and is making some very interesting reading.
At 140 pages (for the full version) it will take some reading. I'm still going through it.
There is some disturbing results in there that will make a lot of people uncomfortable.

[hoist]

another perspective on this report here
- http://www.365gay.com/news/corvino-my-daddys-name-is-donor/

Bionews also reported on it
- http://www.bionews.org.uk/page_64758.asp?dinfo=AJw9KQgM4bkFoH5VJjyHSSpz

Cheers, Bev

[dadams]

Couldn't find the story in the top link but could in the second one.

Anyway, the majority of complaints about the article that are appearing aroud the web appear to be that the paper has not been published in a peer reviewed journal. Which is fair enough. However, speaking to the authors, they said that they were in the process of putting it in the format required for peer reviewed publication and that because this research was done as part of a think tank that the data gets published to the general population first. Journal articles will often cost money for people to read. So it is nice that everyone has access to it rather than a small few.
I spoke to an extremely well published author in this area about such concerns and he was not so worried about that issue.
What is good is that unlike much of the other research is that the respondants were not self-selected as often happens when the research is done through clinics or support groups because the latter can sometimes create bias either way.
It also presents the largest data set so far on the topic.
Personally I would have preferred for there to not be any recommendations but to just let the data stand on its own merit.
Many of the other complaints seem to be focussing on shooting the messenger rather than focussing on the data and what that data could possibly tell us.
The best possible outcome for this paper is that it has created wide spread debate which is sorely needed irrespective of whether people choose to believe in the findings or not.

[hoist]

Didn't intend to present a negative view, I'm just a Google addict
Totally agree with you, and I found reading the data on its own more useful than the conclusions drawn by the authors, as you say it is a terrific and extensive data set. Also good that it is generating some debate

Sorry about the dodgy Corvino article link, not sure why it doesn't work (not for me either)- you can get to it via here -  http://www.bionews.org.uk/page_64254.asp
There are some other interesting links on that one too

Apologies my intro post seems to have disappeared, I'm sure I introduced myself a while ago - I am solo Mum (and member of SMC Australia) of a donor conceived child born in 2004 and we are lucky enough to have recently been put in contact with our donor via the clinic, so far a really amazing experience and a wonderful opportunity for my child. Am planning my submission to the Senate enquiry.

Cheers, Bev

[dadams]

That's OK I knew that it wasn't a negative post by you but even if it was that is ok too as everyone has differing opinions and the more debate the better.
Welcome to the forum Bev and that's great news that your contact has been so successful.