Autopsies can reveal intimate health details. Should they be kept private?

Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve been following news of the deaths of actor Gene Hackman and his wife, pianist Betsy Arakawa. It was heartbreaking to hear how Arakawa appeared to have died from a rare infection days before her husband, who had advanced Alzheimer’s disease and may have struggled to understand what had happened.

But as I watched the medical examiner reveal details of the couple’s health, I couldn’t help feeling a little uncomfortable. Media reports claim that the couple liked their privacy and had been out of the spotlight for decades. But here I was, on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, being told what pills Arakawa had in her medicine cabinet, and that Hackman had undergone multiple surgeries.

It made me wonder: Should autopsy reports be kept private? A person’s cause of death is public information. But what about other intimate health details that might be revealed in a postmortem examination?

The processes and regulations surrounding autopsies vary by country, so we’ll focus on the US, where Hackman and Arakawa died. Here, a “medico-legal” autopsy may be organized by law enforcement agencies and handled through courts, while a “clinical” autopsy may be carried out at the request of family members.

And there are different levels of autopsy—some might involve examining specific organs or tissues, while more thorough examinations would involve looking at every organ and studying tissues in the lab.

The goal of an autopsy is to discover the cause of a person’s death. Autopsy reports, especially those resulting from detailed investigations, often reveal health conditions—conditions that might have been kept private while the person was alive. There are multiple federal and state laws designed to protect individuals’ health information. For example, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) protects “individually identifiable health information” up to 50 years after a person’s death. But some things change when a person dies.

For a start, the cause of death will end up on the death certificate. That is public information. The public nature of causes of death is taken for granted these days, says Lauren Solberg, a bioethicist at the University of Florida College of Medicine. It has become a public health statistic. She and her student Brooke Ortiz, who have been researching this topic, are more concerned about other aspects of autopsy results.

The thing is, autopsies can sometimes reveal more than what a person died from. They can also pick up what are known as incidental findings. An examiner might find that a person who died following a covid-19 infection also had another condition. Perhaps that condition was undiagnosed. Maybe it was asymptomatic. That finding wouldn’t appear on a death certificate. So who should have access to it?

The laws over who should have access to a person’s autopsy report vary by state, and even between counties within a state. Clinical autopsy results will always be made available to family members, but local laws dictate which family members have access, says Ortiz.

Genetic testing further complicates things. Sometimes the people performing autopsies will run genetic tests to help confirm the cause of death. These tests might reveal what the person died from. But they might also flag genetic factors unrelated to the cause of death that might increase the risk of other diseases.

In those cases, the person’s family members might stand to benefit from accessing that information. “My health information is my health information—until it comes to my genetic health information,” says Solberg. Genes are shared by relatives. Should they have the opportunity to learn about potential risks to their own health?

This is where things get really complicated. Ethically speaking, we should consider the wishes of the deceased. Would that person have wanted to share this information with relatives?

It’s also worth bearing in mind that a genetic risk factor is often just that; there’s often no way to know whether a person will develop a disease, or how severe the symptoms would be. And if the genetic risk is for a disease that has no treatment or cure, will telling the person’s relatives just cause them a lot of stress?

One 27-year-old experienced this when a 23&Me genetic test told her she had “a 28% chance of developing late-onset Alzheimer’s disease by age 75 and a 60% chance by age 85.”

“I’m suddenly overwhelmed by this information,” she posted on a dementia forum. “I can’t help feeling this overwhelming sense of dread and sadness that I’ll never be able to un-know this information.”

In their research, Solberg and Ortiz came across cases in which individuals who had died in motor vehicle accidents underwent autopsies that revealed other, asymptomatic conditions. One man in his 40s who died in such an accident was found to have a genetic kidney disease. A 23-year-old was found to have had kidney cancer.

Ideally, both medical teams and family members should know ahead of time what a person would have wanted—whether that’s an autopsy, genetic testing, or health privacy. Advance directives allow people to clarify their wishes for end-of-life care. But only around a third of people in the US have completed one. And they tend to focus on care before death, not after.

Solberg and Ortiz think they should be expanded. An advance directive could specify how people want to share their health information after they’ve died. “Talking about death is difficult,” says Solberg. “For physicians, for patients, for families—it can be uncomfortable.” But it is important.

On March 17, a New Mexico judge granted a request from a representative of Hackman’s estate to seal police photos and bodycam footage as well as the medical records of Hackman and Arakawa. The medical investigator is “temporarily restrained from disclosing … the Autopsy Reports and/or Death Investigation Reports for Mr. and Mrs. Hackman,” according to Deadline.

This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here.

This annual shot might protect against HIV infections

This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here.

Every year, my colleagues and I put together a list of what we think are the top 10 breakthrough technologies of that year. When it came to innovations in biotech, there was a clear winner: lenacapavir, a drug that was found to prevent HIV infections in 100% of the women and girls who received it in a clinical trial.

You never hear “100%” in medicine. The trial was the most successful we’ve ever seen for HIV prevention. The drug was safe, too (it’s already approved to treat HIV infections). And it only needed to be injected twice a year to offer full protection.

This week, the results of a small phase I trial for once-yearly lenacapavir injections were announced at a conference in San Francisco. These early “first in human” trials are designed to test the safety of a drug in healthy volunteers. Still, the results are incredibly promising: All the volunteers still had the drug in their blood plasma a year after their injections, and at levels that earlier studies suggest will protect them from HIV infections.

I don’t normally get too excited about phase I trials, which usually involve just a handful of volunteers and typically don’t tell us much about whether a drug is likely to work. But this trial seems to be different. Together, the lenacapavir trials could bring us a significant step closer to ending the HIV epidemic.

First, a quick recap. We’ve had effective pre-exposure prophylactic (PrEP) drugs for HIV since 2012, but these must be taken either daily or just before a person is exposed to the virus. In 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the first long-acting injectable drug for HIV prevention. That drug, cabotegravir, needs to be injected every two months.

But researchers have been working on drugs that offer even longer-lasting protection. It can be difficult for people to remember to take daily pills when they’re sick, let alone when they’re healthy. And these medicines have a stigma attached to them. “People are concerned about people hearing the pills shake in their purse on the bus … or seeing them on a medicine cabinet or bedside table,” says Moupali Das, vice president of HIV prevention and virology, pediatrics, and HIV clinical development at Gilead Sciences.

Then came the lenacapavir studies. The drug is already approved as a treatment for some cases of HIV infection, but two trials last year tested its effectiveness at prevention. In one, over 5,000 women and adolescent girls in Uganda and South Africa received either twice-yearly injections of lenacapavir or a daily PrEP pill. That trial was a resounding success: There were no cases of HIV among the volunteers who got lenacapavir.

In a second trial, the drug was tested in 3,265 men and gender-diverse individuals, including transgender men, transgender women, and gender nonbinary people. The twice-yearly injections reduced the incidence of HIV in this group by 96%.

In the most recent study, which was also published in The Lancet, Das and her colleagues tested a new formulation of the drug in 40 healthy volunteers in the US. The participants still got lenacapavir, but in a slightly different formulation, and at a higher dose. And whereas the previous trials involved injections under the skin, these participants received injections into their glute muscles. Half the volunteers in this trial received a higher dose than the others.

The drug appeared to be safe. It also appears likely to be effective. These individuals weren’t at risk of HIV. But the levels of the drug in their blood plasma remained high, even in the people who got the lower dose.

A year after their injection, the levels of the drug were still higher than those seen in people who were protected from HIV in last year’s trials. This suggests the new annual shot will be just as protective as the twice-yearly shot, says Renu Singh, a senior director in clinical pharmacology at Gilead Sciences, who presented the findings at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections in San Francisco.

“I was just so excited [to hear the results],” says Carina Marquez, an associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, who both studies infectious disease and treats people with HIV.

Annual shots would make things easier—and potentially cheaper—for both patients and health-care providers, says Marquez. “It will be a game changer if it works, which looks promising from the phase I data,” she says.

The drug works by interfering with the virus’s ability to replicate. But it also seems to have some very unusual properties, says Singh. It can be taken daily or yearly. Small doses can stay in the blood for days rather than hours. And bigger doses form what’s known as a depot, which gradually releases the drug over time.

“I previously worked at the FDA, and looked at many, many different molecules and products, but I’ve never seen [anything] like this,” Singh adds. She and her colleagues have come up with nicknames for the drug, including “magical,” “the unicorn,” and “limitless len.”

Once a phase I trial is successfully completed, researchers will typically move on to a phase II trial, which is designed to test the efficacy of a drug. That’s not necessary for lenacapavir, given the unprecedented success of last year’s trials. The team at Gilead is currently planning a phase III trial, which will involve testing annual shots in large numbers of people at risk of HIV infection.

The drug isn’t approved yet, but the researchers at Gilead have submitted twice-yearly lenacapavir for approval by the FDA and the European Medicines Agency and hope to have it approved by the FDA in June, says Das. The drug is also being assessed under the EU-Medicines for all (EU-M4all) procedure, which is a collaboration between the EMA and the World Health Organizations to fast-track the approval of drugs for countries outside Europe.

With any new medicine for an infection that affects low- and middle-income countries, there are always concerns about cost. The existing formulations of lenacapvir (used for treating HIV infections) can cost around $40,000 for a year’s supply. “There’s no price for the twice-yearly [formulation] yet,” says Das.

Gilead has signed licensing agreements with six generic drug manufacturers that will sell cheaper versions of the drug in 120 low- and middle-income countries. In December, the Global Fund and other organizations announced plans to secure access to twice-yearly lenacapavir for 2 million people in such countries.

But this was an effort coordinated with the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a program whose very existence has come under threat following an executive order issued by the Trump administration to pause foreign aid.

“We are looking at the political situation right now and evaluating our possible options,” says Singh. “We are committed to working with the government to see what’s next and what can be done.”

The pause on US foreign aid will have devastating consequences for the health of people around the globe. And the idea that it might interfere with access to a drug that could help bring an end to the HIV epidemic—which has already claimed over 40 million lives—is a heartbreaking prospect. It is estimated that 630,000 people died from HIV-related causes in 2023. That same year, another 1.3 million people acquired HIV.

“We’re in such a good place to end the epidemic,” says Marquez. “We’ve come so far … we’ve got to go the last mile and get the product out there to the people that need it.”

Now read the rest of The Checkup

Read more from MIT Technology Review‘s archive

You can read more about why twice-yearly lenacapavir made our 2025 list of the top 10 breakthrough technologies here. (It’s also worth checking out the full list, here!)

The pharmaceutical company Merck has explored a different approach to delivering PrEP drugs—via a matchstick-size plastic tube implanted in a person’s arm. 

In 2018, Antonio Regalado broke the news that He Jiankui and his colleagues in Shenzen, China, had edited the genes of human embryos to create the first “CRISPR babies.” The team claimed to have done the procedure to ensure that the resulting children were resistant to HIV.

The first approved mRNA vaccines were for covid-19. But Moderna, the pharmaceutical company behind some of those vaccines, is now working on a similar approach for HIV.

AIDS denialism is undergoing a resurgence thanks to conspiracy-theory-promoting podcasts and books, one of which was authored by the newly appointed US secretary of health and human services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 

From around the web

Last week, I covered the creation of the “woolly mouse,” an animal with woolly-mammoth-like features. Its creators think they’re a step closer to bringing the mammoths back from extinction. But the woolly mammoth is just one of a list of animals scientists have been trying to “de-extinct.” The full list includes dodos, passenger pigeons, and even a frog that “gives birth” by vomiting babies out of its mouth. (Discover Wildlife)

The biotechnology company Beam Therapeutics claims to have corrected a DNA mutation in people with an incurable genetic disease that can affect the liver and lungs. It is the first time a mutated gene has been restored to normal, the team says. (New York Times)

In the peak covid-19 era of 2020, Jay Bhattacharya was considered a “fringe epidemiologist” by Francis Collins, then director of the US National Institutes of Health. Now, Collins is out and Bhattacharya may soon take his place. What happens when the “fringe” is in charge? (The Atlantic)

The Trump administration withdrew the nomination of Dave Weldon to run the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Weldon has a long track record of criticizing vaccines. (STAT) 

Mississippi became the third US state to ban lab-grown meat. The state’s agriculture commissioner has written that he wants his steak to come from “farm-raised beef, not a petri dish from a lab.” (Wired)

An ancient man’s remains were hacked apart and kept in a garage

This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here.

This week I’ve been working on a story about a brain of glass. About five years ago, archaeologists found shiny black glass fragments inside the skull of a man who died in the Mount Vesuvius eruption of 79 CE. It seems they are pieces of brain, turned to glass.

Scientists have found ancient brains before—some are thought to be at least 10,000 years old. But this is the only time they’ve seen a brain turn to glass. They’ve even been able to spot neurons inside it.

The man’s remains were found at Herculaneum, an ancient city that was buried under meters of volcanic ash following the eruption. We don’t know if there are any other vitrified brains on the site. None have been found so far, but only about a quarter of the city has been excavated.

Some archaeologists want to continue excavating the site. But others argue that we need to protect it. Further digging will expose it to the elements, putting the artifacts and remains at risk of damage. You can only excavate a site once, so perhaps it’s worth waiting until we have the technology to do so in the least destructive way.

After all, there are some pretty recent horror stories of excavations involving angle grinders, and of ancient body parts ending up in garages. Future technologies might eventually make our current approaches look similarly barbaric.

The inescapable fact of fields like archaeology or paleontology is this: When you study ancient remains, you’ll probably end up damaging them in some way. Take, for example, DNA analysis. Scientists have made a huge amount of progress in this field. Today, geneticists can crack the genetic code of extinct animals and analyze DNA in soil samples to piece together the history of an environment.

But this kind of analysis essentially destroys the sample. To perform DNA analysis on human remains, scientists typically cut out a piece of bone and grind it up. They might use a tooth. But once it has been studied, that sample is gone for good.

Archaeological excavations have been performed for hundreds of years, and as recently as the 1950s, it was common for archaeologists to completely excavate a site they discovered. But those digs cause damage too.

Nowadays, when a site is discovered, archaeologists tend to focus on specific research questions they might want to answer, and excavate only enough to answer those questions, says Karl Harrison, a forensic archaeologist at the University of Exeter in the UK. “We will cross our fingers, excavate the minimal amount, and hope that the next generation of archaeologists will have new, better tools and finer abilities to work on stuff like this,” he says.

In general, scientists have also become more careful with human remains. Matteo Borrini, a forensic anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University in the UK, curates his university’s collection of skeletal remains, which he says includes around 1,000 skeletons of medieval and Victorian Britons. The skeletons are extremely valuable for research, says Borrini, who himself has investigated the remains of one person who died from exposure to phosphorus in a match factory and another who was murdered.

When researchers ask to study the skeletons, Borrini will find out whether the research will somehow alter them. “If there is destructive sampling, we need to guarantee that the destruction will be minimal, and that there will be enough material [left] for further study,” he says. “Otherwise we don’t authorize the study.”

If only previous generations of archaeologists had taken a similar approach. Harrison told me the story of the discovery of “St Bees man,” a medieval man found in a lead coffin in Cumbria, UK, in 1981. The man, thought to have died in the 1300s, was found to be extraordinarily well preserved—his skin was intact, his organs were present, and he even still had his body hair.

Normally, archaeologists would dig up such ancient specimens with care, using tools made of natural substances like stone or brick, says Harrison. Not so for St Bees man. “His coffin was opened with an angle grinder,” says Harrison. The man’s body was removed and “stuck in a truck,” where he underwent a standard modern forensic postmortem, he adds.

“His thorax would have been opened up, his organs [removed and] weighed, [and] the top of his head would have been cut off,” says Harrison. Samples of the man’s organs “were kept in [the pathologist’s] garage for 40 years.”

If St Bees man were discovered today, the story would be completely different. The coffin itself would be recognized as a precious ancient artifact that should be handled with care, and the man’s remains would be scanned and imaged in the least destructive way possible, says Harrison.

Even Lindow man, who was discovered a mere three years later in nearby Manchester, got better treatment. His remains were found in a peat bog, and he is thought to have died over 2,000 years ago. Unlike poor St Bees man, he underwent careful scientific investigation, and his remains took pride of place in the British Museum. Harrison remembers going to see the exhibit when he was 10 years old. 

Harrison says he’s dreaming of minimally destructive DNA technologies—tools that might help us understand the lives of long-dead people without damaging their remains. I’m looking forward to covering those in the future. (In the meantime, I’m personally dreaming of a trip to—respectfully and carefully—visit Herculaneum.)

Now read the rest of The Checkup

Read more from MIT Technology Review‘s archive

Some believe an “ancient-DNA revolution” is underway, as scientists use modern technologies to learn about human, animal, and environmental remains from the past. My colleague Antonio Regalado has the details in his recent feature. The piece was published in the latest edition of our magazine, which focuses on relationships.

Ancient DNA analysis made it to MIT Technology Review’s annual list of top 10 Breakthrough Technologies in 2023. You can read our thoughts on the breakthroughs of 2025 here. 

DNA that was frozen for 2 million years was sequenced in 2022. The ancient DNA fragments, which were recovered from Greenland, may offer insight into the environment of the polar desert at the time.

Environmental DNA, also known as eDNA, can help scientists assemble a snapshot of all the organisms in a given place. Some are studying samples collected from Angkor Wat in Cambodia, which is believed to have been built in the 12th century.

Others are hoping that ancient DNA can be used to “de-extinct” animals that once lived on Earth. Colossal Biosciences is hoping to resurrect the dodo and the woolly mammoth.

From around the web

Next-generation obesity drugs might be too effective. One trial participant lost 22% of her body weight in nine months. Another lost 30% of his weight in just eight months. (STAT)

A US court upheld the conviction of Elizabeth Holmes, the disgraced founder of the biotechnology company Theranos, who was sentenced to over 11 years for defrauding investors out of hundreds of millions of dollars. Her sentence has since been reduced by two years for good behavior. (The Guardian)

An unvaccinated child died of measles in Texas. The death is the first reported as a result of the outbreak that is spreading in Texas and New Mexico, and the first measles death reported in the US in a decade. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. appears to be downplaying the outbreak. (NBC News)

A mysterious disease with Ebola-like symptoms has emerged in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Hundreds of people have been infected in the last five weeks, and more than 50 people have died. (Wired)

Towana Looney has been discharged from the hospital three months after receiving a gene-edited pig kidney. “I’m so grateful to be alive and thankful to have received this incredible gift,” she said. (NYU Langone)

8,000 pregnant women may die in just 90 days because of US aid cuts

This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here.

Yesterday marks a month since the inauguration of Donald Trump as the 47th US president. And what a month it has been. The Trump administration wasted no time in delivering a slew of executive orders, memos, and work notices to federal employees.

On February 18, Trump signed an executive order that seeks to make IVF more accessible to people in the US. In some ways, the move isn’t surprising—Trump has expressed his support for the technology in the past, and even called himself “the father of IVF” while on the campaign trail last year.

Making IVF more affordable and accessible should give people more options when it comes to family planning and reproductive freedom more generally. But the move comes after a barrage of actions by the new administration that are hitting reproductive care hard for people around the world. On January 20, his first day in office, Trump ordered a “90-day pause in United States foreign development assistance” for such programs to be assessed. By January 24, a “stop work” memo issued by the State Department brought US-funded aid programs around the world to a halt.  

Recent estimates suggest that more than 8,000 women will die from complications related to pregnancy and childbirth over the next 90 days if the funding is not reinstated.

On January 24 Trump also reinstated the global gag rule—a policy that requires nongovernmental organizations receiving US health funding to agree that they will not offer abortion counseling and care. This move alone immediately stripped organizations of the funding they need to perform their work. MSI Reproductive Choices, which offers support for reproductive health care in 36 countries, lost $14 million as a result, says Anna Mackay, who manages donor-funded programs at the organization. “Over 2 million women and girls would have received contraceptive services with that money,” she says.

The US Agency for International Development (USAID) had a 2025 budget of $42.8 billion to spend on foreign assistance, which covers everything from humanitarian aid and sanitation to programs promoting gender equality and economic growth in countries around the world. But the “stop work” memo froze that funding for 90 days.

The impacts were felt immediately and are still rippling out. Clinical trials were halted. Jobs were lost. Health programs were shut down.

“I think this is going to have a devastating impact on the global health architecture,” says Thoai Ngo at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health. “USAID is the major foreign funder for global health … I’m afraid that there isn’t [another government] that can fill the gap.”

Reproductive health care is likely to lose out as affected governments and health organizations try to reorganize their resources, says Ngo: “In times of crisis … women and girls tend to be deprioritized in terms of access to health and social services.”

Without information on and access to a range of contraceptive options, unintended pregnancies result. These have the potential to limit the freedoms of people who become pregnant. And they can have far-reaching economic impacts, since access to contraception can improve education rates and career outcomes.

And the health consequences can be devastating. Unintended pregnancies are more likely to be ended with abortions—potentially unsafe ones. Maternal death rates are high in regions that lack adequate resources. A maternal death occurred every two minutes in 2020.

“It’s difficult to overstate how catastrophic this freeze has been over the last several weeks,” says Amy Friedrich-Karnik, director of federal policy at the Guttmacher Institute, a research and policy organization focused on global sexual and reproductive health and rights. “Every single day that the freeze is in place, there are 130,000 women who are being denied contraceptive care,” she says.

The Guttmacher Institute estimates that should USAID funding be frozen for the full 90 days, around 11.7 million women and girls would lose access to contraceptive care, and 4.2 million of them would experience unintended pregnancies. Of those, “8,340 will die from complications during pregnancy and childbirth,” says Friedrich-Karnik.

“By denying people access to contraception, not only are you denying them tools for their bodily autonomy—you are really risking their lives,” she says. “Thousands more women will die down the road.”

“USAID plays such a central role in supporting these life-saving programs,” says Ngo. “The picture is bleak.”

Even online sources of information on contraceptives are being affected by the funding freeze. Ben Bellows is a chief business officer at Nivi, a digital health company that develops chatbots to deliver health information to people via WhatsApp. “Two million users have used the bot,” he says.

He and his team have been working on a project to deliver information on contraceptive options and family planning to women in India, and they have been looking to incorporate AI into their bot. The project was funded by a company that, in turn, is funded by USAID. Like the funding, the work is “frozen,” says Bellows.

“We’ve slowed [hiring] and we’ve slowed some of the tech development because of the freeze [on USAID],” he says. “It’s bad [for] the individuals, it’s bad [for] the companies that are trying to operate in these markets, and it’s bad [for] public health outcomes.”

Reproductive health and freedoms are also likely to be affected by the Trump administration’s cuts to federal agencies. The National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have been in the administration’s crosshairs, as has the Food and Drug Administration.

After all, the FDA regulates drugs and medical devices in the US, including contraceptives. The CDC collects and shares important data on sexual and reproductive health. And the NIH supports vital research on reproductive health and contraception.

The CDC also funds health programs in low-income countries like Ethiopia. Following Trump’s executive order, the country’s ministry of health terminated the contracts of more than 5,000 health workers whose salaries were supported by the CDC as well as USAID.

“That’s midwives and nurses working in rural health posts,” says Mackay. “We’re turning up to support these staff and provide them with sexual reproductive health training and make sure they’ve got the contraceptives, and there’s just no one at the facility.”

So, yes, it is great news if the Trump administration can find a way to make IVF more accessible. But, as Mackay points out, “it’s increasing reproductive choice in one direction.”

Now read the rest of The Checkup

Read more from MIT Technology Review‘s archive

Last November, two years after Roe v. Wade was overturned, 10 US states voted on abortion rights. Seven of them voted to extend and protect access.

My colleague Rhiannon Williams reported on the immediate aftermath of the decision that reversed Roe v. Wade.

Fertility rates are falling around the world, in almost every country. IVF is great, but it won’t save us from a looming fertility crisis. Gender equality and family-friendly policies are much more likely to be effective. 

Decades of increasingly successful IVF treatments have caused millions of embryos to be stored in cryopreservation tanks around the world. In some cases, they can’t be donated, used, or destroyed and appear to be stuck in limbo “forever.”

Ever come across the term “women of childbearing age”? The insidious idea that women’s bodies are, above all else, vessels for growing children has plenty of negative consequences for us all. But it has also set back scientific research and health policy. 

There are other WhatsApp-based approaches to improving access to health information in India. Accredited social health activists in the country are using the platform to counter medical misinformation and superstitions around pregnancy.

From around the web

The US Food and Drug Administration assesses the efficacy and toxicity of experimental medicines before they are approved. It should also consider their “financial toxicity,” given that medical bills can fall on the shoulders of patients themselves, argue a group of US doctors. (The New England Journal of Medicine)

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the new US secretary of health and human services, has vowed to investigate the country’s childhood vaccination schedule. During his confirmation hearing a couple of weeks ago, he promised not to change the schedule. (Associated Press)

Some scientists have been altering their published work without telling anyone. Such “stealth corrections” threaten scientific integrity, say a group of researchers from Europe and the US. (Learned Publishing)

The US Department of Agriculture said it accidentally fired several people who were working on the federal response to the bird flu outbreak. Apparently the agency is now trying to hire them back. (NBC News)

Could your next pet be a glowing rabbit? This startup is using CRISPR to “level up” pets. Their goal is to eventually create a real-life unicorn. (Wired)