Monday, July 19, 2010

BioNews Comment: “Read With Caution” Response to “My Daddy’s Name is Donor” Study

I learnd via Facebook today that a response to the Institute for American Values study “My Daddy’s Name is Donor” was published online at and within BioNews 567. The response published under their “Comment” section was written by Professor Eric Blyth and Wendy Kramer (co-founder of the DSR), two individuals whose work in this area I highly respect.

The review starts out by declaring their “alignment with the authors' desire to acknowledge donor-conceived people's right to access their ancestral, genetic and biological background” but then launches into “serious misgivings” they saw with the report. It is a short read and well worth it for anyone serious enough to want to acknowledge alternative viewpoints and/or criticism, something the IAV rarely seems to acknowledge themselves from my own experiences with their website.

I have stated before that one of the author’s of the IAV piece I consider a friend, Ms. Karen Clark, as I have long admired her blog and her discussions of these topics. But overall I find the “misgivings” posed in the BioNews comment to be serious enough to question the IAV study and to echo the sentiments to "read it with caution”.


Marquardt said...

Hi Eric --

Not sure how you can say that our blog,, doesn't acknowledge criticism of our work, given that we have posted and responded to I believe every piece of criticism that came out about the report.

Tonight I'm writing a response to the Blyth/Kramer commentary and will be posting it at I hope you'll share it with your readers as well.

My best,

Elizabeth Marquardt,
co-investigator, My Daddy's Name is Donor

DI_Dad said...

Good evening Elizabeth -

I will certainly share the response to the Blyth / Kramer commentary.

As far as my comment re criticism I believe I was referring to personal experiences with comments I left long ago on the Family Scholars blog to general donor conception related posts.


whosedaughter said...

Dear friend Eric,
Thank you. But I have to say that I do not agree with you. There are bloggers on FS with various POV's. Naomi Chan and Dale Carpenter are an example. The biggest concern I have with the Bio-News commentary is that it states this study was conducted by a "Christian" organization (suggesting an "agenda") - which is completely false and boarder line slanderous. Elizabeth is not a Christian and I'm not a Christian - or non-Christian. I don't identify with or define my self by any religion. This debate can become very existential and very heated but we all have to find a way to be respectful and considerate of our various perspectives and efforts to learn and educate. Existing research (so called "peer reviewed") could be equally debated and criticized for bias and sample methods flaws and questions asked and conclusions and "agendas". But that almost seems too petty to even address. The MDND study as well as all the other existing studies are on equal footing to be judged, considered and expanded on.

DI_Dad said...

Karen -

Thank you for your comment as I do appreciate haveing it here. I got all three of its submissions when I logged into the moderation box. My intent is certainly not to get heated but you are right we all too easily can get that way as I have seen many many posts become so across the spectrum.

I missed the references to "christian" oragnization in the BioNews piece. My own views of FS is that is generally quite conservative and that the views espoused usualy take that bent. That is fine as the views are genuine from the writers perspectives but sometimes the views don't allow for alternative thoughts. I am unfamiliar wih the writers you refer to but will look for their work to compare etc.

Again thanks and i look forward to Ms. Marquardt's response.


whosedaughter said...

Elizabeth's article in response to the claims made by Kramer/Blyth in BioNews may now be read here: AND her response on the Family Scholars blog may be read here: