Bioethics Blogs

BPS or BEPS? Yoga or the pill?

An elegant example of biopsychosocial (BPS) impacts on our health has been reported today.

It has long been reported that chronic stress reduces fertility: it reduces libidos, reduces the likelihood of a pregnancy, and increases the risk of miscarriage.

Scientists from the University of Berkeley have shown that blocking the gene for a hormone – called gonadotropin inhibitory hormone (GnIH) removes the impact of the stress on fertility levels in rats, and restored a normal rate of pregnancy.
If this translates to humans, it could have major impact. According to the University of Berkeley press release:

“Stress is thought to be a major contributor to today’s high levels of infertility: Approximately three-quarters of healthy couples under 30 have trouble conceiving within three months of first trying, while 15 percent are unable to conceive after a year.”

The BPS model explores causal interaction between the biological, psychological, and social factors in illness (usually in the context of understanding mental illness). This might be one of the more simple biopsychosocial interactions. Kenneth Kendler’s fascinating Loebel Lecture series unpicked some complex interactions (video and audio available on the Oxford Loebel Lectures and Research Programme website).

But it raises an interesting ethical question, and one that frequently arises in the enhancement debate. Should we take a biological solution, when an environmental solution is available?

In the case of stress and fertility, if this discovery makes the leap from bench to bedside, we would then have two options to address stress related infertility: 1) reduce our stressful lifestyles or 2) knock out the biological response that causes the infertility.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.