This past Sunday, Louise Brown, the first child created by in vitro fertilization, turned 32. She might have been born several years earlier if the UK’s Medical Research Council had supported the work of Robert Edwards and Patrick Steptoe. A new paper in Human Reproduction takes a closer look at the reasons behind the British council’s decision to not fund the work that would lead to the world’s first “test tube baby”.

At the time, the hot topic was addressing the problem of overpopulation &mdash the idea of fertility treatments seemed egregiously wasteful. The MRC wanted more extensive trials with primate subjects before IVF was attempted in humans. The paper also suggests that the council was also put off by the media presence of Edwards and Steptoe, who were seen as outside the medical establishment; the former was neither a professor nor a medical doctor, and the latter was a gynecologist from a small northern English hospital.

Edwards and Steptoe eventually succeeded in pioneering IVF procedures with the backing of private funds, but their story resonates today. The competition for public research dollars can lead to scientists gravitating towards trendy areas, leaving so-called “Cinderella topics” languishing for want of funds. In the rush to comb every bit of DNA for disease biomarkers, what might the medical community be overlooking? What areas of research are neglected today? We welcome your comments below.