So, remember when you argued that the reduced miscarriage rate observed in this one study we did on the breast/ovarian cancer predisposition database might be associated with an increase in the rate of congenital anomalies in the children born to those women? After all, if miscarriages exist in part to eliminate babies with serious anomalies, and mutations in the genes that put these families at risk of cancer have to do with DNA repair, and whenever DNA repair is not so good, you have more mistakes and anomalies, it stands to reason...
Well, there happens to be a large, regional congenital anomalies register that’s supposedly exhaustive, so I called some people up and looked into it.
Turns out, not only do families with cancer risk (any cancer, not just breast cancer) declare fewer miscarriages than usual, but we could match them to the congenital anomalies register and guess what? They have far fewer kids with anomalies, too.
But there you are.
So I’ve written up a bit of a paper, and I’d like to get it submitted in November.
Ah, that’s interesting. I’m eager to see the data. Who knew my annoying objections would go so far.
November, you say? Well, I’m away one week in two for the next month...
Well, I’d really like to get it submitted. Perhaps you can take a look at it before you leave.
That gives me just one week. I don’t think it’s going to happen.
Aw, give it a try.
(perusing the manuscript with its 10 pages of single-spaced F-ese) Um, is this first part the abstract? Or the introduction?
Oh, I haven’t written the abstract yet. That’s a sort of introduction. Feel free to flesh it out, maybe add some references. I’m not really a fertility expert.
I'll see what I can do.