Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

kiwilapple t1_ixbsdmp wrote

Damn, only 56? That's easy peasy baby numbers when you're talking about these kind of medical techniques, especially back then. It's only because of inefficient low success rates that we ever got to more efficient, high success rates in adjacent fields like IVF for humans.

14

Nydelok t1_ixcan2s wrote

I love how “back then” in science is only 19 years. So much development in such a small time

10