High SAT score? Your eggs may be worth more, Tech study says

By Ty Tagami

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

It's long been accepted that a degree from a prestigious college can increase a graduate's value in the workplace.

Now, a study has found that mere attendance at a selective institution can increase the value of a woman's ovaries.

Eggs harvested from students attending universities with higher SAT scores are worth more money, according to new research from Georgia Tech.

A review of advertisements in campus newspapers across the country found that offers for a student's eggs increased by $2,350 for each 100-point increase in the average SAT score of the incoming class at that school.

The research suggests that people who want to have children by in vitro fertilization are willing to pay more for "smart genes," said Aaron Levine, the assistant professor of public policy who did the study.

The ethics over payment for egg donations are hotly contested. Some say women and couples should be free to enter into transactions with informed consent. Others say the sale of eggs can lead to the "commodification" of women's bodies and that paying more for desired characteristics, such as intelligence or hair and eye color, raises the specter of eugenics.

A leading medical organization has established guidelines that say compensation should not be tied to characteristics of the donor. The group, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, also recommends a maximum standard payment of $5,000, and says sums higher than that require "justification." The limits, last updated in 2007, cap ethical payments at $10,000.

Levine said his discovery about SAT scores suggests the guidelines about donor characteristics have been violated. He said another of his discoveries -- that half of the 105 advertisements he sampled offered more than $5,000, with a quarter of them exceeding the $10,000 limit -- suggests that the caps on payments are being violated, as well.

"I'm pointing out that the caps aren't all that effective, and if we think limits are important, then we need a better system," he said.

All the ads that violated the standards were placed either by couples seeking to have a child or by brokers. None were placed by doctors or clinics, which means the guidelines are effective for the professionals who fall under them, said Sean Tipton, a spokesman for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

"It's just real difficult for us to do anything about what people who are not members of our group do," he said.

The organization opposes federal regulation of egg exchanges. Some countries, such as the United Kingdom and Canada have banned most compensation for egg donors. The result has been a shortage of donor eggs in those countries and "medical tourism" to the United States by couples seeking children, both Levine and Tipton said.

Levine said limits on compensation are necessary to reduce pressure on young women who feel squeezed  by college debt. Offer them enough money, and they might not think through the consequences of donating, he said. The egg-harvesting process is "invasive," requiring a regimen of hormones followed by a medical harvesting procedure.

And the compensation pressure can be enormous at some schools. Levine found an ad from the campus newspaper at Brown University offering $50,000. He found ads offering $35,000 at Harvard, Princeton and Yale.

Here in Georgia, the highest offer he saw was $20,000, at Emory. An offer of $6,000 at Kennesaw State University came closer to the $5,000 median for all institutions sampled, he said. (The ads were collected in 2006.)

Levine's research has been published in the current edition of the Hastings Center Report. The Center, which focuses on bioethics, published a contrary view by a University of Texas law professor.

John A. Robertson, who chaired the ethics committee of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, questioned whether there should be any limits on compensation. There is no evidence that payments in excess of $10,000 lead women to overlook the risks of donating, he wrote. More money might encourage more women to donate, he added, but that does not mean they are being exploited. And, he asked, what's wrong with paying a woman more if she is healthier and has a particular ethnic background or high intelligence?

"After all," he wrote, "we allow individuals to choose their mates and sperm donors on the basis of such characteristics. Why not choose egg donors similarly?"