– We are always hearing about breakthroughs in male birth control but I never seem to hear about it again. Why is this? Is there a reason why multiple different forms of male birth control never seem to materialize for sale?
In: Biology
Research often requires public release of findings as a condition of funding. This is why you hear about cancer breakthroughs all the time.
Research is not the same as productization. It hasn’t been tested, trialed, scaled up, approved by the government etc.
From what little research I’ve done in the matter, it’s cheaper to just cover up for us guys. Girls don’t really have that option except for some strange contraption called an “African condom”, and if you’re brave enough to look that up, you can probably imagine why it’s not widespread in a world whose politics are usually dominated by men.
A woman’s reproductive system is very complex – and thus easier to “break” so that pregnancy can’t occur.
A man’s reproductive system is relatively simple, and hard to break, particularly in a non-permanent manner. So far, no “drug based” birth control has proven safe and effective and reversable.
Still waiting on the vasalgel? Wasn’t that supposed to be on us market by now?
Because the reality is that pharmaceutical research is slow and tedious, and that makes for poor headlines. If you were a news editor, would you prefer “Potential cure for major ailment found,” or “Drug that may or or may not treat a major ailment successfully passed the first round of preliminary test, has years more to go”?
There are two major points:
1) The female body already has an ‘anti-pregnancy’ measure built in as part of a routine (a period) along with a ‘backup’ (terminating the pregnancy) so there are multiple reversable options that are already in place that you just have to convince the body to use. Males don’t have this. The only way for it to work is to prevent sperm from existing/being viable to cause pregnancy without being permanent.
A few years ago there was one that was ‘promising’ at least until preliminary tests. It more or less functioned as a reversible vasotomy by eliminating the production of sperm. The problem is the body really wants to produce it to breed. Because of this there were side effects – not ‘oh the test subject has a headache’ rather every single test subject had at least one SERIOUS side effect. Like drinking a bottle of vodka daily level of bad side effect. (note I said at least one) and the scientists running the test had to pull the plug despite the test subjects willingness to go forward.
Same reason the next scientific breakthrough that will REVOLUTIONISE the way we live is always 5-10 years away, every year for the past whatever decades, the press loves to overhype stuff before it’s really tested through and once the results are in it turns out it was more of a small nudge forward at best rather than the huge leap the headlines claimed.
The basic idea is that there is no natural mechanism to stop the production of sperm in men. The various methods that have been tried lead to potential permanent damage or severe side effects. Ultimately the safest and most effective male birth control created so far is the condom.
Female contraceptives have many uses besides birthcontrol therefore it is easier to justify its development for grants, research efforts and regulatory boards.
Additionally men can undergo vasectomies which is “permanant” and significantly less risky than “getting your tubes tied”
It’s easier to stop the egg from getting fertilized or implanted than stopping millions of sperm from swimming. It’s literally a numbers game. While yes it’s not really fair it falls mostly on women it’s a necessary evil or get pregnant beyond tubes tied or a vasectomy.
Latest Answers