Plus, their cost puts patients in an impossible position ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
September 30, 2026—Additional "treatments" to help with IVF are costly and widely used, but they aren't backed by strong science. Plus, what it means that the U.S. has weapons in space, and the Atlantic Ocean has been eerily quiet.
—Andrea Gawrylewski,
Chief Newsletter Editor
|
|
Getty Images; Scientific American
|
|
Fertility Busts
In the U.S., in vitro fertilization (IVF) often costs individuals tens of thousands of dollars. But on top of that, “add-on” treatments are common; surveys conducted in the U.K. and Australia indicate that at least three quarters of IVF patients have tried such add-ons at one point or another. Some can increase costs into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Yet in many cases, these treatments just aren’t backed by science.
What they are: Most add-on treatments can’t guarantee to improve someone's chances of pregnancy or birth. Some have better scientific backing than others.
-
Weak evidence: A recent meta-analysis of 10 popular add-on treatments found that three treatments—endometrial receptivity testing (basically, testing of the uterine lining), corticosteroids (a category of immune system drugs) and PGT-A (genetic testing embryos)—had little to no impact on the odds of a live birth. Four add-ons—acupuncture, intralipid infusion (fat injections intended to regulate the immune system) and platelet-rich-plasma, or blood injections, in the uterus and ovaries—had either mixed evidence or low-quality data backing them up.
-
Better evidence: Just three procedures had any evidence of a possible benefit, according to the review: a procedure similar to a biopsy called endometrial scratching, a method of selecting sperm called physiological intracytoplasmic sperm injection, and EmbryoGlue, a type of treatment to help embryos attach to the uterus.
Why this is happening: The U.S. National Institutes of Health has historically restricted studies on IVF, particularly anything to do with the embryo, says Marcelle Cedars, director of the Center for Reproductive Health at the University of California, San Francisco. As a result, research is being done outside of academia—where investigators rely on federal funding—and in an environment “much more driven by market forces,” she says.
Join the discussion: Do you think the government should test and regulate IVF add-on treatments? Should insurance companies be required to cover IVF and related procedures? Share your thoughts here.
|
|
Wars in Space
Earlier this month, U.S. officials announced the country has weapons in space—a shocking revelation if it wasn’t “the worst-kept secret in the world,” says a former U.S. official. Even so, it’s the first time any nation has publicly acknowledged space weapons—and it raises some questions about what exactly these weapons are and what space warfare might look like. The answer is likely a type of space maneuver where one satellite gets really close to another, disrupting or disabling its capabilities in a tactic that might start as annoying but can quickly escalate.
How it works: Offensive space capabilities can span multiple categories, from apocalyptic nuclear bombs to space lasers. The most likely agents of war in space, though, are platforms for disrupting or disabling satellites’ activity without actually destroying them. In most cases, these function through something called rendezvous and proximity operations (RPOs). RPOs can inspect the target, shield friendly spacecraft from attacks, jam enemy communications or block optics. Without international guidelines governing these types of maneuvers and how close is too close, experts say provocative RPOs could quickly become flashpoints for conflict, whether on the ground or in orbit.
What the experts say: As the technology for conducting RPOs gets better, they could become a “linchpin” for space security, says former arms control official Mallory Stewart, because these maneuvers can also be used for good, like servicing satellites in-orbit or removing debris. “The irony of it all is that if we’re gonna move into the space economy, we’re gonna need that RPO capacity,” Stewart says. “So we can’t say, across the board, that these are inherently nefarious.” —Mary Randolph, News Intern
|
|
|
|
|
Meta exploits a tax break intended for scientific research to claim billions of dollars in tax credits for expanding their data centers. | The New York Times ($)
Japan is running out of space for solar farms. So they're using golf courses. | Japan Times
Storms driven by El Niño are washing away parts of the California coast. | The Atlantic ($)
|
|
This newsletter is powered by caffeine, existential curiosity and subscribers to Scientific American. Join us: 90 days for just $1.
|
|
Important bear update: A brown bear living in Katmai National Park named Backpack has won Fat Bear Week 2026. According to a description on the competition's website, Backpack is "a medium-large adult male with blond ears, light brown fur in early summer, and grizzled brown fur in late summer. He has relatively few visible wounds and scars compared to most adult males in his size and age class." Congrats to Backpack and his more peaceful approach to living.
|
|
Send any comments or feedback on this newsletter to: newsletters@sciam.com. I'll be away tomorrow, but Emma Gometz will be bringing you the most important science updates.
—Andrea Gawrylewski,
Chief Newsletter Editor
|
|
|
|
|
Subscribe to this and all of our newsletters here.
|
|
Scientific American
1000 N West Street, Suite 1200
|
|
|
|
|
