Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41030629›Full record

ReviewThe Yale journal of biology and medicine2025

Shelling Out: Eugenic Afterlives in Egg Donation Advertising in Two Elite University Newspapers.

Cheryl Hagan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Yale journal of biology and medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Cheryl HaganDepartment of History and Sociology of Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Oocyte or egg donation has been part of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) landscape since the late 1980s. By the early 1990s, ART clinics, agencies, and family law offices began to place advertisements in college newspapers seeking egg donors to build egg banks and for particular couples. Couples themselves also began to seek out specific donors that matched criteria they were looking for. These ads grew from blanket calls for egg donors between particular ages to asking for intelligence defined by SAT scores, specific races, eye and hair colors, and more. Although scholars such as sociologist Rene Almeling and political scientist Erin Heidt-Forsythe have written about the eugenic assumptions at play in egg donations, this has mostly emerged from looking at clinics and agencies who broker eggs. Focusing instead on both clinical and individual advertising in elite university newspapers more easily reveals eugenic afterlives in how potential egg donation recipients talk about the genetic inheritability of intelligence and race. Considering that ads are placed in elite university newspapers, these egg recipients are targeting presumably intelligent students whose genetic material would contain supposedly superior DNA to pass on to potential offspring. Race is also assumed to be a stable biogenetic concept. These ads reveal how egg donation recipients are implicated within larger societal inequalities and power dynamics surrounding race, kinship, ability, and privilege.

Indexed as

AdvertisingEugenicsNewspapers as TopicOocyte DonationFemaleHumansUniversitiesEgg donationEgg donation advertisingEugenic afterlivesEugenic legaciesOocyte donation

Identifiers

PMID41030629
PMCPMC12466296

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.