Theatre Review: A Child of Science

For those with an interest in the development of reproductive technologies, Louise Brown will be a well-known name as the world's first 'test-tube baby'. A Child of Science, currently playing at Bristol's Old Vic, follows the journey to Brown's birth – bringing emotion, compassion, and humour to what could otherwise have been a sterile account of this medical advancement.

The play centres around three main storylines, which converge to allow for one of the most significant medical breakthroughs in reproductive medicine.

The play opens in 1958 with our first introduction to Dr Patrick Steptoe as he tries to save the life of a woman who has been, quite literally, butchered following an illegal back street abortion. The impact of the harrowing scene continues throughout the play, acting as a reminder of the importance of scientific developments in the care of women. The empathy and care Dr Steptoe exhibits towards his patients in this first scene extends throughout the performance, even as the focus of his endeavours shift.

We then move to Dr Robert Edwards, working in his laboratory to mature eggs in vitro. After success in various trials, he and his colleague discuss the potential to extent the research to humans. 'Fascinating' or 'fantasy' is the debate between the two characters: this becomes a recurring theme throughout the play. Is the research plausible, and even if it is, should it be continued? As the trials continue, Dr Edwards is supported by Jean Purdy, a nurse and embryologist, who develops into one of the central characters, particularly in the second half of the play.

The final character we are initially introduced to is Margaret Isherwood, who is a vivacious woman, looking forward to her upcoming marriage and starting a family. However, an alleged pre-marital 'curse' pervades Isherwood's journey over the following decade, as she subsequently grapples with infertility and becomes known as 'Patient 38' in the trials.

The play spans a period of 20 years, seeing the development of these three characters and storylines. With Dr Steptoe's research into the use of laparoscopy, a keyhole incision into the abdomen, and Dr Edward's ability to mature eggs outside of the human body, they can begin human trials. There were no cliffhangers – we know the outcome – but seeing the progress of the research from a human perspective was compelling and serves as a reminder of the challenges that can be faced in the pursuit of medical development.

The production does not necessarily make heroes of the protagonists. There were some catchy quotes about the altruistic nature of the research from all the key characters, and they were framed as the 'good' ones, pitched against those that would seek to restrict the research. However, throughout the play, Dr Edwards' determination to extend the research led to legitimate concerns of a God-complex, and his dogged approach in pursuit of success risked undermining the altruism behind the science. Similarly, as the trials begin to result in successful pregnancies, Dr Steptoe exhibited egotism in his concerns over his reduced participation. The portrayal of Purdy remained most pure in this regard.

The play also raises legitimate concerns over the balance of ethics and progress: there were several decisions made during the trials that felt uncomfortable in viewing. For example, Dr Edwards persuades a colleague to provide him with 'waste' human tissue to enable the testing to extend to human eggs. In light of modern understandings of consent, the covert nature of this was uneasy to observe. Issues of consent again arose later in the performance. I felt there was a disconnect between the motives of the research team and the patients' understanding of the prospect of a viable pregnancy, which centred around what they had signed to consent to during the trials. The play does not examine this tension in detail, and it gets somewhat swept away by the success of the science.

For something that is now considered as an accepted, and potentially even unremarkable, form of healthcare, it was interesting to see the social, cultural and religious response to the research and trials. Resistance from many perspectives were explored. The religious aspect was centred around an impactful scene recounting the Pope's objections to the practice, and a recurring issue throughout the dialogue was the extent to which medicine, and the research team, should be able to play God.

The role of the press was also significant throughout the play, influencing the perspectives of some of the characters directly involved. However, beyond the religious and social hesitance, the play also examined the resistance faced within the medical field itself. The Medical Research Council were highly sceptical of the laparoscopy procedure Dr Steptoe was advocating for and would not fund the research. When Dr Steptoe explained that he cared for, and wanted to help women, the response was that this was 'part of the problem'. The idea that women's health was not a priority pervades these scenes.

The production was written based on first-hand accounts of people involved in the trials or who had worked with Dr Edwards. This leads to a convincing representation of the history. However, it is a fictionalised account and some of the characters were entirely imagined. As with many dramatisations of true events, it is therefore difficult to ascertain the extent of artistic license in the re-telling.

A Child of Science will be enjoyed by a wide audience, and its reach is not confined to those with an interest in the science behind the introduction of IVF. It makes for hard viewing at times, but the humour, optimism, and candid representation of the realities of the protagonists' journey make it a memorable and uplifting watch.

A Child of Science is at Bristol Old Vic until Saturday 6 July.