Advertisement

The Search for Better Contraception

  • Oscar Harkavy
Part of the The Springer Series on Demographic Methods and Population Analysis book series (PSDE)

Abstract

Prior to the watershed year of 1959, the Ford Foundation confined its population effort to support of demographic studies, carefully avoiding entanglement with birth control or contraception lest it offend Catholic sensibilities, particularly those of the chairman of the board, Henry Ford II. But assuring itself of Henry II’s nihil obstat, the foundation made a $1.4 million general support grant to the Population Council in March 1959 that explicitly included support for biomedical research. And in June 1959 we organized a meeting of the leading reproductive scientists of the day, who agreed that while most established researchers were adequately funded, the foundation might want to increase the supply of young scientists entering the field.

Keywords

Contraceptive Method Family Planning Program Rockefeller Foundation Ford Foundation Pharmaceutical Firm 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Roy O. Greep, Marjorie A. Koblinsky, and Frederick S. Jaffe, eds., Reproduction and Human Welfare: A Challenge to Research (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press 1976), p. 376.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Christopher Tietze, “Intra-Uterine Contraceptive Rings: History and Statistical Appraisal” in Christopher Tietze and Sarah Lewit, eds., Intra-Uterine Contraceptive Devices, Report of a Conference, April 30–May 1, 1962 (New York: Excerpta Medica Foundation, n.d.). Tietze believed that intrauterine devices lying entirely in the uterus were confused with stem pessaries and other devices inserted into the cervix, which were notoriously ineffective and were sites of infection.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Unlike the closed Graffenberg and Ota rings, these devices are open-ended, avoiding the risk of bowel strangulation by a closed ring that may migrate out of the uterus.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ford Foundation Trustees’ Docket, March, 1960, Ford Foundation Archives #ACC 00 1005.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Robert Sheehan and Elizabeth Weil-Fisher, “The Birth Control ‘Pill,’” Fortune, April 1958.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ford Foundation Trustees’ Docket, March, 1960.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Roy Hertz, A Quest for Better Contraception: The Ford Foundation’s Contribution to Reproductive Science and Contraceptive Development, 1959–83 (New York: Ford Foundation, 1984), p. 6.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ibid., p. 11. In an interview with Tabitha Powledge, Edwards noted that his research opened new leads to the study of human development and to the possibility of screening embryos for genetic defects before they are placed in the womb. With respect to contraception, Edwards asserted that his measurement of the LH (luteinizing hormone) surge prior to ovulation might lead to more effective use of the rhythm method of family planning (Tabitha M. Powledge, The Ford Foundation and the Revolution in Fertility Control, 1986, p. 63, Ford Foundation Archives). Ms. Powledge’s fascinating monograph, recounting “adventures in science” by a number of foundation grantees was commissioned by the Ford Foundation but never published because the foundation no longer funded reproductive science.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Directory of Ford Foundation Fellows in Reproductive Biology, 1960–1972, compiled by Catherine A. Craig, Ford Foundation, 1973.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    The 362 respondents were self-selected; it is likely that a smaller proportion of the nonrespondent group were active in reproductive research in their home countries. About five years later foundation staff attempted to update the 1973 survey, entered a mass of data on computer tapes, but (alas!) those responsible for the project left the foundation and the data were never completely analyzed nor published.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    For a systematic, expert evaluation of the Ford Foundation’s support of reproductive science and contraceptive development see Hertz, A Quest for Better Contraception, pp. 23-35.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    See Population Council, Proceedings of a Conference on Immuno-Reproduction, September 9–11, 1962, Population Council Archives.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    The Ford Foundation supported the work of Roger Guillemin, first at Baylor University and then at the Salk Institute. Guillemin’s work on the hypothalamic factor controlling pituitary hormones that activate the gonads won the Nobel prize in 1972, but has not yet resulted in a practical method of contraception.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    A major exception to the free distribution of contraceptives through family planning clinics is the use of “social marketing” schemes in many developing countries under which contraceptives provided at no cost by USAID are packaged and sold for a modest price through indigenous marketing networks.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    New York Times, October 30, 1992.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    As of this writing, only two brands of IUD are sold in the United States: the Copper-T 380A, developed by the Population Council and licensed to Gynopharma; and the Progestasert, a progesterone-releasing IUD developed by the Alza Corporation, based on a prototype invented by Antonio Scogmegna under a Ford Foundation grant.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Carl Djerassi, “Birth Control after 1984,” Science 169 (September 1970):941–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Carl Djerassi, The Politics of Contraception (New York: W. W. Norton), p. 74, cited in C. Wayne Bardin, “Public Sector Contraceptive Development: History, Problems, and Prospects for the Future,” Technology in Society 9, nos. 3/4 (1987):292.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cited in P. Roy Vagelos, “Are Prescription Drug Prices High?” Science 252 (May 1991):1080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    C. Wayne Bardin, “Public Sector Contraceptive Development,” p. 291.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Djerassi, “Birth Control After 1984,” p. 944.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ibid., p. 951.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Phyllis Piotrow, World Population Crisis: The United States Response (New York: Praeger, 1973), p. 175.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    E.-E. Baulieu, “RU-486 as an Antiprogesterone Steroid,” Journal of the American Medical Association 262 (October 1989):1808-1814.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Piotrow, World Population Crisis, pp. 176-177.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    IFRP subsequently enlarged its scope to cover a broad range of reproductive health topics, including AIDS prevention, and changed its name to Family Health International, under the dynamic leadership of Dr. Malcolm Potts.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Others include the International Organization for Chemical Sciences in Development (IOCD), the Contraceptive Research and Development Program (CONRAD) initiated in 1987 by USAID, and in the developing world, contraceptive development activities supported by the Indian Council for Medical Research (see Bardin, “Public Sector Contraceptive Development,” p. 295). Newer efforts include the Rockefeller Foundation’s South-to-South Network, sponsoring collaborative research by Third World investigators, spearheaded by Sheldon Segal; and contraceptive research centers established by the National Institutes of Health at the Universities of Virginia and Connecticut.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Population Council, A Chronicle of the First Twenty-Five Years, 1952–1977 (New York: Population Council, 1978), pp. 63–65.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    At Population Council headquarters there is a giant photograph of Harold Nash and Irving Sivin—council staff responsible for preparing documentation for submission of clinical data on the NORPLANT contraceptive implant to the FDA—standing next to two piles of these documents. The piles of paper tower over the two scientists.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Population Council, Chronicle, pp. 94-95.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Population Council, Annual Report, 1990, p. 85Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    In fact, these royalties are not earmarked for ICCR but are returned to the Population Council’s general budget.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Population Council Annual Report, 1990, p. 138, and 1993, p. 130, The council spent $6.5 million on contraceptive development in 1990, $9.7 million in 1993.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ford Foundation grants for reproductive research contain an agreement that requires nonexclusive licensing of any patents arising from the grant to all applicants; granting of an exclusive license requires approval by the foundation. In 1968 the foundation made a grant to Antonio Scogmegna of Michael Reese Hospital under which he developed an intrauterine device that emitted progesterone. In response to the Alza Corporation’s request for an exclusive license to manufacture a version of Scogmegna’s device under the brand name of Progestasert, the foundation and Alza entered into lengthy negotiations resulting in Alza’s agreement to offer Progestasert to family planning clinics at cost in bulk quantities. (Reaching agreement on a formula to calculate the “cost” of this product took more than a year of negotiations.) Planned Parenthood of America was to serve as purchasing agent for all family planning clinics in the United States, but withdrew when a few reports appeared of birth defects for babies born to mothers wearing the device. The defects may well have occurred by chance, but Planned Parenthood was unwilling to risk product liability lawsuits.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    NORPLANT is covered by Medicaid in every state. But the low insertion and removal fee allowed physicians under most Medicaid programs may prevent many family planning clinics from offering NORPLANT to their clients (see Alan Guttmacher Institute, Washington Memo, April 4, 1991, pp. 1-2). As is true of medical care in general, the working poor who are ineligible for Medicaid are unlikely to afford NORPLANT.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Piotrow, World Population Crisis, pp. 201-202.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Reproductive Health: A Key to a Brighter Future (Geneva: WHO, 1992), pp. 44–45.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    This estimate was developed in collaboration with my Ford Foundation biomedical colleague, Dr. Anna Southam, for a consultants’ report on population and family planning to the U.S. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare in 1967.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Alex Kessler, the Expanded Programme’s first director, who was reluctant to acknowledge the Ford Foundation’s role in creating his program, describes this funding as follows: “Sweden pledged US $300,000, and Canada and the Ford Foundation also made contributions” (Special Programme, Reproductive Health, p. 48).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    WHO as a whole tends to irritate other agencies involved in international health activities by insisting on exercising its “constitutional function... to act as the directing and coordinating authority of international health work” (Special Programme, Reproductive Health, p. 54).Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    The original HRP task forces dealt with regulation of implantation, ovum transport, the fertilizing ability of sperm in the male, sperm migration and survival in the female, prostaglandins in fertility regulation, sequelae and complications of induced abortion, and acceptability of fertility regulation methods (Alan Barnes, Bruce Schearer, and Sheldon J. Segal, “Contraceptive Development,” Third Bellagio Conference on Population, May 1973, Working Papers, The Rockefeller Foundation, June 1974, p. 76). As additional promising areas of research were identified, new task forces were formed and others abandoned.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Special Programme, Reproductive Health, pp. 24-25.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Annual Technical Report, 1991 (Geneva: WHO, 1992), p. 10.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ibid., p. 22.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    For example, Linda E. Atkinson, Richard Lincoln, and Jacqueline Darroch Forrest, “The Next Contraceptive Revolution,” Family Planning Perspectives 11, no. 4 (December 1985):100-107.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bardin, “Public Sector Contraceptive Development,” p. 305.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    New York Times, May 4, 1994, and May 17, 1994.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bardin, “Public Sector Contraceptive Development,” p. 301.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Oscar Harkavy, “Funding Contraceptive Development,” Technology in Society 9, nos. 3/4 (1987):317.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Joan Dunlop, Presentation to Board of Directors, Population Resource Center, November 17, 1992. ICCR is currently testing one-and two-year versions of NORPLANT.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    In the United States some judges have advocated a coercive use of NORPLANT by requiring child abusers or drug-addicted mothers to submit to insertion of this contraceptive as an alternative to incarceration. Sheldon Segal, inventor of NORPLANT, has written and spoken widely against coercive use of this method (Population Council, Annual Report, 1991, pp. 70-72).Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ibid., p. 37.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    New York Times, November 29, 1992, p. D10.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    For example, in Thailand only about 1 percent of married couples use condoms for contraception (Family Health International FHI], Network 13, no. 1 (August 1992):25).Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Some years ago a mock scientific article appeared heralding the invention of an “intrapenile device.” This consisted of a small umbrella inserted in the urethra that when opened might cause “some discomfort” but would prevent emission of semen and hence serve as an effective male contraceptive.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Nash Herndon, “Looking for the ‘Male Pill,’” FHI Network 13, no. 1 (August 1992):21. Sheldon Segal (personal communication) is wary about the use of an androgen to restore the testosterone level knocked out by LHRH. He notes that there is great variability in the release of hormones by implants, with the expectation that abnormally high or low levels of testosterone may be produced in some patients. Interviewed for the Network article, Segal declared: “Androgen is just another way of saying anabolic steroid. You’d be giving a man the same stuff that we kick kids off the Olympic team for using. You have to be very, very careful administering androgens to assure that you stay with the normal ranges” (pp. 22-23).Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ibid., pp. 22-23.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Population Council, Annual Report, 1991, p. 70.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ibid., p. 25.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Special Programme, Annual Technical Report, 1991, pp. 44-45.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Royal Society and National Academy of Science, Joint Statement, “Population Growth, Resource Consumption, and a Sustainable World” February 1992, quoted in Population and Development Review 18, no. 2 (June 1992):377.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Ibid., p. 383.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. A/CONF.151/4 (Part I), 22 April 1992, p. 24, United Nations.Google Scholar

Selected Bibliography

  1. Back, Kurt W., Family Planning and Population Control, Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1989.Google Scholar
  2. Bardin, C. Wayne, Public Sector Contraceptive Development: History, Problems, and Prospects for the Future, Technology in Society, 9 (3/4) 1987, 289–306.Google Scholar
  3. Baulieu, E.-E. RU-486 as an Antiprogesterone Steroid, Journal of the American Medical Association, 262 1989, 1808–1814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berelson, Bernard, Richmond K. Anderson, Oscar Harkavy, John Maier, W. Parker Mauldin, and Sheldon J. Segal, eds., Family Planning and Population Programs, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966.Google Scholar
  5. Berelson, Bernard, The Present State of Family Planning Programs, First Population Conference, Bellagio, Lake Como, April 6–8, 1970, Rockefeller Foundation, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Berelson, Bernard, Oral History, Ford Foundation Archives, November 21, 1973.Google Scholar
  7. Berelson, Bernard, Where Are We Going?: An Outline. Bellagio IV Population Conference, June 7–9, 1977, Rockefeller Foundation Working Papers, November 1977.Google Scholar
  8. Bongaarts, John, W. Parker Mauldin, and James F. Phillips, The Demographic Impact of Family Planning Programs, Studies in Family Planning, 21 (6), 1990, 299–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bongaarts, John, Population Growth and Global Warming, Population and Development Review, 18, (2), 1992, 299–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Caldwell, John, and Pat Caldwell, Limiting Population Growth and the Ford Foundation Contribution, London: Frances Pinter, 1986.Google Scholar
  11. Callahan, Sidney, and Daniel Callahan, eds., Abortion: Understanding Differences, New York: Plenum Press, 1984.Google Scholar
  12. Carter, Stephen L., Strife’s Dominion, The New Yorker, August 9, 1993, 86-92.Google Scholar
  13. Cleland, John, Marital Fertility Decline in Developing Countries: Theories and Evidence, in John Cleland and John Hobcraft, eds., Reproductive Change in Developing Countries: Insights from the World Fertility Survey, New York: Oxford University Press, 1985.Google Scholar
  14. Coale, Ansley J., and Edgar M. Hoover, Population Growth in Low Income Countries: A Case Study of India’s Prospects, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958.Google Scholar
  15. Coale, Ansley J., and Susan C. Watkins, eds., The Decline of Fertility in Europe, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  16. Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, Population and the American Future, The Report of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972.Google Scholar
  17. Demeny, Paul, Social Science and Population Policy, Population Council Center for Policy Studies Working Paper, no. 138, May 1988.Google Scholar
  18. Demerath, Nicholas J., Birth Control and Foreign Policy, New York: Harper and Row, 1976.Google Scholar
  19. Djerassi, Carl, Birth Control after 1984, Science, 169, no. 949, 1970, 941–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Donaldson, Peter J. Nature Against Us, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  21. Ehrlich, Paul R., The Population Bomb, New York: Ballantine Books, 1968.Google Scholar
  22. Ehrlich, Paul R., and Anne Ehrlich, The Population Explosion, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990.Google Scholar
  23. Ensminger, Douglas, Oral History, Ford Foundation Archives, 1971.Google Scholar
  24. Finkle, Jason L., and Barbara B. Crane, The Politics of Bucharest: Population, Development, and the New International Economic Order, Population and Development Review, 1, (1), 1975, 87–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ford Foundation, Report of the Study for the Ford Foundation on Policy and Programs, New York: Ford Foundation, 1950.Google Scholar
  26. Ford Foundation, Trustees’ Docket, July 15–16, 1952.Google Scholar
  27. Ford Foundation, The Ford Foundation’s Work on Population, New York: Ford Foundation, 1985.Google Scholar
  28. Freedman, Ronald, Social Research and Programs for Reducing Birth Rates, reprinted in Social Science Research on Population and Development, Ford Foundation Conference, New York City, October 29–30, 1974.Google Scholar
  29. Freedman, Ronald, The Contribution of Social Science Research to Population Policy and Family Planning Program Effectiveness, Studies in Family Planning, 18 (2), 1987, 57–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Greep, Roy O., Marjorie A. Koblinsky, and Frederick A. Jaffe, eds., Reproduction and Human Welfare: A Challenge to Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  31. Harkavy, Oscar, Funding Contraceptive Development, Technology in Society, 9 (3/4), 1987, 307–321.Google Scholar
  32. Harkavy, Oscar, Frederick Jaffe, and Samuel Wishik, Implementing DHEW Policy on Family Planning and Population, 1967, reprinted in Hearings before the Subcommittee on Foreign Aid Expenditures of the Committee on Government Operations, U.S. Senate, 1967–68, Part 1, 163-180.Google Scholar
  33. Hertz, Roy, A Quest for Better Contraception: The Ford Foundation’s Contribution to Reproductive Science and Contraceptive Development, 1959–83, New York: Ford Foundation, 1984.Google Scholar
  34. Hodgson, Dennis, Demography as Social Science and Policy Science. Population and Development Review, 9 (1), 1983, 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jain, Anrudh, Issues in Population Program in India, Population Council, March 1989.Google Scholar
  36. Johnson, Stanley, World Population and the United Nations, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  37. Jones, E. F., J. D. Forrest, N. Goldman, S. K. Henshaw, K. Lincoln, J. I. Rosoff, C. F. Westoff, and D. Wolff, Teenage Pregnancy in Developed Countries, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  38. Keyfitz, Nathan, Thirty Years of Demography and Demography. Demography, 30 (4), 1993, 533–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kirby, Douglas, Cynthia Waszik, and Julie Ziegler, Six School-Based Clinics: Their Reproductive Health Services and Impact on Sexual Behavior, Family Planning Perspectives, 23 (1), 1991, 6–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kirby, Douglas, Richard P. Barth, Nancy Leland, and Joyce V. Fetro, Reducing the Risk: Impact of a New Curriculum on Sexual Risk-Taking, Family Planning Perspectives, 23 (6), 1991, 253–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kiser, Clyde, The Work of the Milbank Memorial Fund in Population Since 1928, The Milbank Fund Quarterly, 49 (4), part 2, 1971, 15–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Krishnakumar, S., The Story of the Ernakulum Experiment in Family Planning, Government of Kerala, 1971.Google Scholar
  43. Kritz, Mary M., The Rockefeller Foundation’s Activities in Population, Rockefeller Foundation, April 1982.Google Scholar
  44. Mauldin, W. Parker, Nazli Choucri, Frank W. Notestein, and Michael Teitelbaum, A Report on Bucharest. Studies in Family Planning, 5 (12), 1974.Google Scholar
  45. McCarthy, Kathleen D., The Ford Foundation’s Population Programs in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, 1959–1981, Ford Foundation Archives, Report #011011.Google Scholar
  46. Menken, Jane, ed., World Population and U.S. Policy, New York and London: W.W. Norton, 1986.Google Scholar
  47. Minkler, Meredith, Consultants or Colleagues: The Role of U.S. Population Advisors in India, Population and Development Review, 3 (4), 1977, 403–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mosley, W. Henry, and Lincoln C. Chen, An Analytical Framework for the Study of Child Survival in Developing Countries, in W. Henry Mosley and Lincoln C. Chen, eds., Child Survival: Strategies for Research, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984.Google Scholar
  49. National Research Council, Population Growth and Economic Development: Policy Questions, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  50. Notestein, Frank W., Reminiscences, The Milbank Fund Quarterly, 49 (4), part 2, 1971, 67–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Notestein, Frank W., Demography in the United States: A Partial Account of the Development of the Field, Population and Development Review, 8 (4), 1982, 651–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Osborn, Fairfield, Our Plundered Planet, Boston: Little, Brown, 1948.Google Scholar
  53. Piotrow, Phyllis, World Population Crisis, New York: Praeger, 1973.Google Scholar
  54. Population Council, A Chronicle of the First Twenty-Five Years, New York: The Population Council, 1978.Google Scholar
  55. Preston, Samuel H., The Contours of Demography: Estimates and Projections. Demography, 30 (4), 1993, 593–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pritchett, Lant H., Desired Fertility and the Impact of Population Policies. Population and Development Review, 20 (1), 1994, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Reed, James, From Private Vice to Public Virtue, New York: Basic Books, 1978.Google Scholar
  58. Rockefeller, John D., 3rd, Population Growth: The Role of the Developed World, Bucharest: IUSSP, 1974.Google Scholar
  59. Ross, John A., and W. Parker Mauldin, eds., Berelson on Population, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1988.Google Scholar
  60. Sadik, Nafis, Safeguarding the Future, New York: UNFPA, n.d.Google Scholar
  61. Schorr, Lisbeth, Within Our Reach, New York: Anchor Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  62. Shaplen, Robert, Toward the Well-Being of Mankind: Fifty Years of the Rockefeller Foundation, New York: Doubleday, 1964.Google Scholar
  63. Sheehan, Robert, and Elizabeth Weil-Fisher, The Birth Control “Pill,” Fortune, April 1958.Google Scholar
  64. Simon, Julian L., The Ultimate Resource, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981.Google Scholar
  65. Smil, Vaclav, Planetary Warming: Realities and Response, Population and Development Review, 16 (1), 1990, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Steiner, Gilbert Y, ed., The Abortion Dispute and the American System, Washington, D.C.: Brookings, 1983.Google Scholar
  67. Strickland, Stephen P., ed., Population Crisis, Hearings before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Foreign Aid Expenditures, Committee on Government Operations, Washington, D.C.: Socio-Dynamics Publications, 1970.Google Scholar
  68. Symonds, Richard, and Michael Carder, The United Nations and the Population Question, 1945–1970, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973.Google Scholar
  69. Thompson, Warren, Population, American Journal of Sociology, 34, 959-75.Google Scholar
  70. Trussell, James, Jane Menken, Barbara L. Lindheim, and Barbara Vaughan, The Impact of Restricting Medicaid Financing for Abortion, Family Planning Perspectives, 12 (2), 1989, 120–130.Google Scholar
  71. United Nations Population Fund, Global Assistance Report, 1982–1991, New York: UNFPA, 1992.Google Scholar
  72. Vogt, William, Road to Survival, New York: W. Sloane Associates, 1948.Google Scholar
  73. Ward, Martha C., Poor Women, Powerful Men: America’s Great Experiment in Family Planning, Boulder and London: Westview Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  74. World Health Organization, Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Reproductive Health: A Key to a Brighter Future, Geneva: WHO, 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oscar Harkavy
    • 1
  1. 1.The Ford FoundationNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations