We are curious about a couple of things.
Why and how were the three methods chosen as “most promising” among a dozen methods mentioned?
Is it coincidence that in the past week many stories have popped up about male contraceptive research, including a somewhat similar piece by Scientific American this same day?
The story’s concluding line summarizes why this matters: “given that roughly half of all pregnancies in the U.S. are unplanned, ‘we need to have more options for couples to be able to plan their lives.’ “
Not applicable. Cost not discussed but since the article clearly stated that the methods discussed are “at least years away,” this is understandable.
The column presents a small amount of data on the relative effectiveness of the methods discussed (“In India, the first men to test it have had it for 20 years, with no pregnancies…;” “…ineffective in about 10% of men;”) for RISUG and hormone treatment. The story also points out that Vitamin A derivatives have not been tested in humans.
While harms weren’t quantified, we can accept that given the clear and concise summary of what’s been shown in studies so far.
Again, that infographic sidebar on the three methods does a nice job of presenting a synopsis of the evidence, pros and cons of various methods being researched.
No disease mongering here.
The entire column was a comparison of methods. Very nice wrapup.
We like the left column sidebar that lists 3 “promising” methods and specifies status and availability. Nice touch.
The column did a solid job summarizing the current status of research in this field.
Solid, independent reporting.