A LITTER OF ONE: Evolutionary Biologist Robert Sikes explains why humans are not designed to have a gaggle of newborns.
Image: FLICKR/SUREKAT
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Late last month, a team of 46 doctors and nurses in the Los Angeles suburb Bellflower pulled eight babies from the belly of a 33-year-old woman. The octuplets—the second known set to have been born in the U.S.—were nine weeks premature and were delivered in just five minutes via caesarean section.
The feat shifted from a source of biological wonderment to opprobrium as it was revealed that the mother, Nadya Suleman, an unemployed, graduate student who lives with her parents, already had six other children, ages two to seven. Many people expressed outrage that taxpayers had been footing the bill for her other children (through Social Security disability payments and food stamps) when the Associated Press estimated her medical costs could be $1.3 million in addition to the $2.7 million estimated to raise all 14 children to the age of 17. Police are even investigating death threats against her, and the once-celebrated mom of many has reportedly gone into hiding.
Although humans typically give birth to a single child per pregnancy, twins, triplets and larger "litters" have become more common with the rise of in vitro fertilization, the technique Suleman undertook whereby eggs are fertilized by sperm in a laboratory and later implanted into the uterus. Because of the cost of each implantation and the likelihood that one or more embryo will not survive, doctors typically implant three fertilized eggs into a woman's womb to up the chances of a viable birth. Some believe that Suleman's fertility doctor, Michael Kamrava, implanted more than that, violating professional ethical guidelines, although not breaking any U.S. laws. Kamrava, a general practitioner who lacks board certification for obstetrics and gynecology, has one of the worst records for successful in vitro implantations in the country, according to Forbes.
Economic and ethical considerations aside, humans are not biologically equipped to handle so many offspring per birth. Suleman's babies ranged in weight from 1.5 to three pounds (0.7 to 1.4 kilograms), and low-birth weight correlates with lower intelligence and a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes, according to BBC reports. Premature infants, common in multiple births, face a greater risk of breathing problems, brain and organ damage and, later in life, developmental problems and cerebral palsy.
Meanwhile, other mammals, like dogs and rodents, are perfectly capable of having more than 10 babies in a litter. What makes them different from primates? To find out more about the evolution of litter size, we spoke to Robert Sikes, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Arkansas in Little Rock, who has studied the northern grasshopper mouse, an animal that has between one and six offspring at a time.
[An edited transcript of the interview follows]
How many offspring do most mammals have at a time? What about other animals?
Lots and lots of mammal species have singletons (a litter of one), and a few have large litters. The lab rat has litters of 10 or more, although part of that may have been a result of breeding in the lab. Many dogs will have litters in the mid-teens.
If you look at animals like salmon, they are going to produce hundreds of thousands of eggs. Many invertebrates are going to produce lots of eggs, as well.
See what we're tweeting about
18 Comments
Add CommentModern medical miracles misused by unethical doctor and psychologically challanged woman = large litter of defective offspring. In the real world the female would have died in birthing and all of her offspring would die soon after. Heredity problem solved. But how do you prevent the misuse of modern science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat was the motive to implant so many at one time? Was it even necessary to implant? she already has children. I saw a video of her holding her baby's, she was calling them "A, B, C... G". They were frail, thin, weak, and all hooked up to machines with tubes and wires, it was sad. Then she went on to explain that she 'felt bad' to leave them at the hospital, "but i have my other kids to take care of." I feel for those babies, i feel sad for them. I agree with you pgtruspace, in reality, the babies would not have made it when they were born premature. A baby needs every day it can get while in the womb for nutrition !! Then babies need mothers milk for immunities. What they got is early birth, and tubes in every orifice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot sure if there is a way to Prevent the misuse, just morals and ethics of individuals and their doctors.
It is so obvious why she had these kids. She is a religious fanatic. She named all her kids after biblical names and said shes not worried about how support them. She said God will help her find a way. Where are all religious nuts that will deny evolution & natural selection but will go out and have In vitro fertilization and call it a miracle? Have the preacher down the road support her & all those kids. Hes the one filling gullible people like her with crap like with god anything is possible . Well let god feed all those kids. I really feel sorry for those kids, they havent got a chance. Where are the hypocrites that dont believe in abortion, but cry that there taxes will now have to support these kid. Where the religious zealots that dont believe in birth control and every life is precious. Every forum I read, people are out raged at this woman action. No one can talk bad about religion because the boogie man will send you to hell. They cherry pick region to fit their selfish needs. When will we (the human race) work on the quality of life & not quantity of it? Probably never.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is so obvious why she had these kids. She is a religious fanatic. She named all her kids after biblical names and said shes not worried about how support them. She said God will help her find a way. Where are all religious nuts that will deny evolution & natural selection but will go out and have In vitro fertilization and call it a miracle? Have the preacher down the road support her & all those kids. Hes the one filling gullible people like her with crap like with god anything is possible . Well let god feed all those kids. I really feel sorry for those kids, they havent got a chance. Where are the hypocrites that dont believe in abortion, but cry that there taxes will now have to support these kid. Where the religious zealots that dont believe in birth control and every life is precious. Every forum I read, people are out raged at this woman action. No one can talk bad about religion because the boogie man will send you to hell. They cherry pick region to fit their selfish needs. When will we (the human race) work on the quality of life & not quantity of it? Probably never.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGot to admit that is pretty rare!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRT
www.anon-tools.us.tc
Wow, talk about blanket statements regarding people who believe in God. Jkief, your comments are clearly based on stereotypes! Where is your tolerance? I hate to address another post instead of the article but I couldn't let this slide. I'm a neuroscientist who very much loves Jesus and completely understands (and partially agreess with) evolution. I agree that blind faith and cherry picking certian things from a what God says is not a good thing, but you have some serious hostilities toward God or relgion that need to be addressed! We agree that it was definitely selfish of this woman to get IVF when she can barely support her birthed children, but don't take out one woman's selfishness on religion. Jesus didin't tell her to have 14 kids. Plus, who was to know that the procedure would actually work for all eight eggs? That's a total anomaly in the field of IVF so for that she really can't be blamed, the fault lies on her doctor. To be honest, I hold the doctor more responsible than anyone, he "overplanted", not the woman.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisif we have more offspring,we cannt allocate equal love to each one.so it is unfair to the child who has less love from their parents
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause humans were not evolved to have freaking litters! Could there be some clue in the fact that it simply doesn't happen naturally? What are the odds, one in a couple of billion? No, we have to screw around with the process to make it happen. Could there maybe some clue there?! Humans are stupid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI hold the doctor responsible more than anyone in this case. It is truly a shame that people in that position abuse their power and make the rest of us pay for...literally. 8 more children have been brought into the world and what chance do they have at a quality life? The doctor in this case should have to pay child support for all 8 kids as if he were the father...and the women should have some serious psychological evaluations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisM_I_K_3 good- , HELL Best idea I've heard all week. He may very well will learn ethics or at least responsible behavior.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi just dont think she should be allowed to keep all those poor babies. i think they should be adopted out. she seems to be a bit of a "collector".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTime will tell. Certainly a few of these kids will die in young age. Maybe one will turn a burglar, maybe one will turn out to be a US president. They live in an incredible environment. They are exceptional kids and may well have exceptional lives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree there are abuses of science here, but the worst abuse is in the social sciences. What kind of rational society would pay for fertility treatments at public expense for anyone? And in a world where overpopulation is an issue, what kind of medical practitioner would assist people to conceive children? Assisting with capital punishment or torture pales into insignificance compared with this sort of malpractice. And I'm not talking about creating octuplets. All medical practice aimed at getting people pregnant is malpractice and a gross violation of professional ethics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thispgtruspace makes an excellent point about the process of Natural Selection and it's inability to perform due to un-natural interference. If a gene is not eliminated then it will be passed on, plain and simple. So hypothetically, lets say our dear Nadya passed on a psychopathic gene to each and every one of her 14 little angels, that makes a total of 15 potential psychopaths. Lets say they all ended up being just like mommy and had 14 children of their own. That's 196 grandchildren, 14 children, and 1 mommy which totals to 211 potential psychopaths. Then for sweet sentimental psychopathic reasons, it becomes a family tradition to have no less than 14 kids. 2,744 great grandchildren, 211 grand children, 14 children, and 1 mommy later would hypothetically give the world a grand total of 2,970 psychopaths in only 4 generations from just one single person who felt her fundamental right to have children out weighed the effect it will have on the world we all have to share with each other.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisC'mon guys! Whats with all the negativity? We don't have to worry! The pharmaceutical companies have been moooore than glad to give us all the man made chemicals we'll need to keep us going until the Los Angeles Fertility Institute gets this whole "designer Baby" thing wrapped up. Only a couple more t's to cross and i's to dot.
Look, the bottom line is, I'm sure once we humans get this whole playing God thing down in order to please ourselves, we won't even need mother nature let alone miss it. I mean how hard can it be right? It's like, how far down the cause and effect chain do we REALLY need to go to make sure were not screwing anything up? We can always fix it later I mean HELLO we can manipulate DNA right down to the chromosomes! If we can figure that one out, then it's all smooth sailing from here ;o)
100 years from now, kids will learn about Mother Nature's course of Natural Selection as being a cruel, harsh, and possibly even an irresponsible way to deal with lives.
OK, people,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this7 billion people and this irresponsible wants more kids?
Think about how many cancer cases could be cured with the money spent in this pointless pursuit...
Then, in case you have any more doubts, think about adopting 8 poor orphan kids from some forgotten place in Africa, instead of generating more human mass (of which there's plenty, if not too much) in the country with the largest per-capita environmental footprint.
Food for thought...
your math is wrong. For it to be correct all of her children would need to be female.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyukkks!!!! It's just like a pig!..huhhhhhhhh
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe someday humans would give birth to hundredths
I just wanted to point out that there is no reason that a woman with twins cannot exclusively breastfeed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fact that many doctors do not fully appreciate the difference between breast and artificial feeding methods may account for the large percentage of mothers of twins supplementing with formula.