award The 2010 Nobel Prize in Physiology has been awarded to Robert G. Edwards "for the development of in vitro fertilization". The statement of the committee of high school Karolinska, Stockholm, points out the significance of Edwards' work in treating human infertility and extols the value of the basic research as a premise for solving practical problems in clinical medicine. It describes the worldwide spread of assisted reproductive techniques and the process of refinement that they have undergone since the birth of Louise Brown in 1978.

The news -- just look at the Internet -- has provoked a wave of congratulations. Most of the press releases express satisfaction, if not jubilation. They assign to Edwards not only scientific merits, but also an incredible load of honors, especially for having brought happiness to many couples who suffered the torment of not having children. In these years, in vitro fertilization has become the panacea for infertility: there is talk of four million children generated at laboratory. Moreover, it has given rise to effective or promising techniques, such as preimplantation genetic diagnosis, the procurement of stem cells, and programs of study on gene regulation of the early embryo.

But, among so much praise, there is hardly any mention of certain questionable ethical aspects of the history and nature of the work now awarded. Edwards has written two autobiographical books about his feat. But he has not revealed in them the ethical history, but only partly the scientific history, of the research that preceded his success. It should be made clear that what stands out in Edwards has been his incredible tenacity to persevere in his endeavor, despite year after year of failures. However, we cannot attribute originality to him: in vitro fertilization techniques are the work of biologists and veterinarians who had been trying for years to improve livestock reproduction. He adapted them to the human species. The priority of human in vitro fertilization has to be attributed to the earlier experiments of John Rock and Landrum Shettles.

Although Edwards showed interest in the development of ethical and legal mechanisms that could control the new reproductive techniques. But he was not a critical or profound ethicist: based on his prestige, he wanted others to adopt the ethics he had designed. I had a discussion with him, 25 years ago now, at discussion in Brussels on the inconsistencies of a document he had submitted to the Assembly of the World Medical Association association . He did not respond to the criticisms. Obviously, he could afford to do so, as he knew he was backed by his successes.

I believe that the awarding of the Nobel Prize to Edwards gives us the opportunity to read, or reread, the Vatican Declaration Donum vitae, on respect for nascent human life and the dignity of procreation. In my opinion, no one has refuted, with rational arguments and data contrasted, the ethical reasons contained in that document, which, by the way, bears the signature of the then Cardinal Ratzinger. 

Let's hear the two bells.