A Call for Easy Access to More Contraception and Choices

Innovative and existing methods are needed to tackle global overpopulation, experts say

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The 2014 annual meeting of the Society for the Study of Reproduction began, somewhat incongruously, with a discussion of contraception. With the global population set to top 8 billion in a little more than a decade, clinicians, public-health researchers and some private funders see a pressing need to support work on new contraceptive methods — and to get existing methods into the hands of those who want them.

Contraception is unique among medical interventions for the wide variety of benefits it offers, says Anna Glasier, a researcher in contraception and public health at the University of Edinburgh, UK. In addition to reducing the burden of overpopulation, it has improved health, reduced infant and mother mortality and empowered women — but it is used at vastly differing rates from country to country.

Researchers generally suspect that the more educated the women, and the higher they rank in other socioeconomic factors, the more demand they will have for contraceptives. But when women in rural Bangladesh were offered high-quality contraceptive advice and a range of options in the 1970s to 1990s, their use of contraceptives increased from 5% to 45% — dramatically reducing the birth rate and mother and infant mortality.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


In developed countries such as the United States — where up to half of all pregnancies are unwanted or mistimed — even people with access to treatments such as oral contraceptive pills often fail to use them properly. A 2010 study of women in Boston, Massachusetts, found that daily text-message reminders to take the pill did not do much good.  “You begin to think you’re banging your head against the wall,” says Glasier.

Pick and choose
With that in mind, researchers are seeking to increase the array of choices available, hoping that women will be able to find methods more suited to their lifestyles. One non-surgical approach uses polidocanol, a drug that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for treating of varicose veins, but that can also be used to induce scarring in the fallopian tubes, keeping eggs from reaching the uterus. Jeffrey Jensen, a reproductive-medicine specialist at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, has been testing the approach in monkeys. He says that polidocanol could one day be a cheap and easy option for women who want to curtail their fertility permanently.

Scientists at the meeting, held in Grand Rapids, Michigan, were less cheerful about the prospects of developing a hormonal contraceptive for men. Christina Wang, a reproductive-health researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles, is working to develop such a pill by combining a progestin steroid with testosterone. But she says that pharmaceutical companies' interest in such treatments has cooled over the past decade.

Wang is still optimistic that men — particularly single men — would be interested in a safe, effective way to control their fertility. But as Jensen points out, risks from an unplanned pregnancy are simply not as clear and present for men as they are for women.

This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on July 23, 2014.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe