World’s leading surrogacy researcher calls out opponents of surrogacy for misrepresenting the evidence

Professor Susan Golombok, retired head of the Centre for Family Research at Cambridge University, has written an important opinion piece for Bionews about surrogacy, criticising the lack of evidence justifying recent reports condemning surrogacy.

Professor Golombok has led high quality peer-reviewed research into psychological outcomes following surrogacy – for children, parents and surrogates – over a 20+ year period. She and her team have found (across many studies) that – despite previous dire warnings by policymakers that surrogacy would cause psychological harm – that was not in fact the case, and that most families and surrogates experienced good outcomes. Professor Golombok’s piece highlights how that research is now being ignored in the face of ideologically-driven attempts to have surrogacy restricted or banned. In Bionews, she has written:

Instead of informing discussion, evidence has increasingly been ignored, misrepresented, or selectively quoted. This has occurred in the context of a growing backlash against surrogacy, including from politically and religiously motivated groups opposed to surrogacy and assisted reproduction more broadly.

and

What is disturbing in the current debate is not serious disagreement, but the determination of some opponents of surrogacy to dismiss or misrepresent evidence that does not fit their beliefs. Even a limited body of carefully gathered data provides a sounder basis for public policy than an abundance of conviction unsupported by facts.

At Brilliant Beginnings we know that the narrative around surrogacy has become darker in the past few years, and we share Professor Golombok’s frustration. Surrogacy is, in our long experience, practiced ethically in the overwhelming majority of cases, leading to birth of loved, wanted children, while also being a fulfilling experience for the surrogates involved and their families. Rare examples of concerning experience (particularly overseas) get a lot of attention, but they are not the norm. They are what should drive public policy to better regulation in the UK and abroad. Restriction and prohibition are not an answer. The calls for surrogacy to be abolished – and the broadbrush painting of surrogacy as exploitative – is not only unjustified, but harmful for the many surrogates, families and children who have participated in ethical surrogacy.

Find out more about UK surrogacy law reform