[...] Association reacts to the study. At Strollerderby another blogger (see the first time ‘round) has her say with “Sperm Donor Kids Actually Just Fine, Thanks.” Reacting to this post, [...]

Here’s the comment from researcher Elizabeth Marquardt, who was irritated, in spots, by my take on their research. It’s linked above. “See Table 1 in the report for all the questions we asked. You’ll see there’s lots of room in the questions for positive as well as negative stories to be told by donor offspring. (What is more rare about our study is that we actually allowed for donor offspring to be able to say negative things about their experience or donor conception itself. I challenge you to find another study more balanced than ours, in terms of the range of experience we allowed donor offspring to express.)

Also, it’s a little funny that the author of the post seems to think we didn’t know what was in our own study. Ma’am, I lived with these findings for two years before publication. I know what a complex story they tell — and you do too, precisely because you’ve read the report.

One more point: I think the fact that 20 percent of donor offspring, compared to 0 percent of adopted and 1 percent of raised-by-biological, have donated their own sperm/eggs/been a surrogate is a stunning finding coming out of our report. And, in fact, it’s in the press release. And in the 15 Major Findings summary. And Ross Douthat happened to note it, too, when he had only 700 words to devote to our study. I’m not exactly hiding that finding. Although you and I seem to have different views on what it might mean. Glad you’ve shared yours. (To find a different point of view, read Alana S’s story of being conceived by anonymous sperm donation and donating her own eggs. )

I responded: “You are right that there is more to be said about your very complex (and fascinating) study. I hope that researcher and writers will continue to say it. I think you took my post more negatively than it was meant. I was frustrated by the shorter press release, which we received, and the simplistic response it recieved in some places. I wanted to draw our readers attention to the fact that if you really read this study–as is true of most research–you’ll see that a far more complex picture lies beneath the headlines.
I suppose it should be clear that I have an agenda, too–and it actually has nothing to do with reproductive technologies. My goal is for every reader who spots the words “studies show” to respond by asking: what studies? Conducted by who, and where, and why? Who funded the study? What more can we learn? I am suspicious of the knee jerk reaction to the headlines, which tends to be “does this effect me, and should I change or justify my behavior?”
Your organization, and your study, comes from a particular viewpoint and with a particular goal: increased scrutiny over or regulation of reproductive technologies. I don’t necessarily disagree with you. I need more research and information before I draw a conclusion. But I do think that any media coverage of your report should reflect its complexity and its origins. (and I am aware of your colleague’s well-considered objections to gay marriage, and the fact that he’s regarded as one of its most respected opponents–and, too, that he supports gay adoption. I don’t think I said anything that would suggest otherwise.)
Nice title, by the way. If I was as dismissive of your work–which I actually appreciated and respected–as you were of mine, my apologies.”
And that’s a little behind the scenes look at how writers, researchers and bloggers are interacting, web-wise. Even further behind the scenes, two people exchanged friendly emails about blogging, writing, and those moments when we forget that there are real individuals behind every exchange.

0% of adoptees are willing to perpetrate onto another generation what was done to them. That is the most stunning fact from the study. Of course, it will be ignored. Too much money to be made, and too many souls to “save,” to give any thought to what it does to the kids.