“Are children conceived through assisted reproductive technology (ART) at increased risk of childhood cancer?” A large Danish study reveals that the answer may be “YES”!

For years, the Center for Bioethics and Culture (CBC) has raised concerns about the long-term health and well-being of children conceived through assisted reproductive technologies (ART). While the fertility industry often emphasizes and markets pregnancy rates, successful births, and technological advances, a much more fundamental question has gone largely unanswered: What exactly do we know about the long-term health of the children born through these procedures?

After decades of widespread use, it is astonishing that so many questions about the long-term health of ART-conceived children remain unanswered, but new research is beginning to shed light on these concerns—and what we are learning is deeply troubling. A study published October 21, 2026, in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) adds important new evidence to this growing body of research.

Researchers from the Danish Cancer Institute and other Danish institutions found that children conceived through certain assisted reproductive technologies had a higher incidence of childhood cancer than children conceived without ART. The findings do not establish that ART causes cancer, but they raise questions that deserve serious attention from physicians, researchers, policymakers, and prospective parents.

The study, titled Childhood Cancer Risk After Assisted Reproductive Technology, examined more than 1 million children born in Denmark between 1996 and 2012. Researchers followed these children through 2023, with a median follow-up period of 20 years. Of the 1,086,136 children included in the study, 37,228 (3.4%) were conceived using assisted reproductive technology. Researchers identified a total of 3,736 cases of childhood cancer during the study period.

When researchers compared children conceived through ART with those conceived without it, they found a 26% higher incidence of childhood cancer among the ART-conceived group. However, the findings varied depending on the type of reproductive technology used. Frozen embryo transfer was associated with more than twice the incidence of childhood cancer, while ICSI was associated with a 48% higher incidence. In contrast, conventional IVF was not associated with a statistically significant increase.

The researchers also found differences in the types of cancer associated with these procedures. Frozen embryo transfer was associated with higher rates of leukemia, lymphoma, and soft tissue sarcomas, while ICSI was associated with higher rates of lymphoma, soft tissue sarcomas, and central nervous system tumors. These differences suggest that the specific procedures and laboratory practices involved in assisted reproduction may matter when evaluating potential long-term health risks.

Importantly, the researchers conducted additional analyses comparing ART-conceived children with children born to women who had a history of infertility but did not undergo ART. The findings remained similar with a higher incidence of cancer among ART conceived children, suggesting that factors related to the procedures themselves, rather than infertility alone, warrant further investigation.

At the Center for Bioethics and Culture, we have long argued that reproductive technologies raise questions that extend well beyond simply whether or not they can help someone achieve a pregnancy and birth. We must also ask how these technologies affect the women that are used for and undergo them and, critically, for the children born as a result.

For too long, the conversation surrounding assisted reproductive technology has focused primarily on adult desires, technological possibilities, and the achievement of a live birth. Far less attention has been given to understanding the long-term health consequences for the children conceived through these procedures. A successful pregnancy and delivery do not, by themselves, establish that a reproductive technology is safe and ethical. Children are not simply the outcome of a successful medical procedure. They are human beings whose health, dignity, and well-being deserve our utmost consideration. They should not bear the burden of unanswered questions simply because the technology used to conceive them is widely accepted or increasingly common.

This study underscores the urgent need for more rigorous, long-term research. We need studies that follow children conceived through ART into adolescence and adulthood and research that investigates the biological and procedural factors that may contribute to increased health risks. We also need greater transparency about what is known, what remains unknown, and what prospective parents should understand before making decisions about these technologies.

The researchers themselves call for replication of their findings, international collaboration, and continued follow-up. These are important next steps. The findings should not be dismissed simply because they do not establish causation. Nor should they be overstated as proof that ART causes cancer. They deserve careful attention and further investigation.

At the Center for Bioethics and Culture, we have been raising questions about the long-term health and well-being of ART-conceived children for years. This new study reinforces why those questions matter. The desire to have a child is deeply human, but fulfilling that desire through reproductive technology does not remove our responsibility to consider the potential consequences for the child.

Finally, we must stop measuring the success of reproductive technology solely by whether it produces a baby. We must also ask what happens to that child afterward. Their health, safety, and well-being must never be an afterthought.

Author Profile

CBC-Network