In
1955, geneticist Helen Spurway discovered the phenomenon known as
parthenogenisis: how some species procreate without a male. Spurway was
studying guppies, but wanted to know if parthenogenisis, or "virgin
birth," happened in humans. A call went out through the British magazine
Sunday Pictoral to find possible cases. They found Emmimarie
Jones, who had an 11-year-old daughter named Monica with no known
father. Tests available at the time showed that Monica had many genetic
traits eerily identical to her mother's, except for a skin transplant,
which both mother and daughter eventually rejected.
Eight
months after the search for a virgin mother had been announced, the
Pictorial published a world exclusive on Emmimarie and her daughter. The
full details of their tests were also revealed in The Lancet, which
published “Parthenogenesis in Human Beings” by Dr Stanley Balfour-Lynn
of Queen Charlotte’s Hospital in London. On the skin grafts, The Lancet
concluded that they indicated that Monica’s genes did not in fact match
her mother’s, despite all the previous evidence to the contrary. Yet
there was a scientific curiosity here. What any parthenogenetically
conceived child certainly could not have, unless they had mutated, were
any genes that had not come from the mother in the first place. This is
why the skin graft from a virgin-born child would be expected to take
when implanted on her mother, but one from the mother would not
necessarily take on her child. Yet, the opposite had happened in
Emmimarie and Monica’s test. What on earth was going on?
In such a
case, Balfour-Lynn wrote, interpretation was very difficult, making
rigorous proof impossible. True, the Joneses had failed the most
stringent test, but that didn’t negate the validity of the first three;
it only muddied the waters. The study concluded that Emmimarie’s claim
that her daughter was fatherless must be taken seriously. “Doctors have
been unable to prove that any man took part in the creation of this
child”, screamed the Sunday Pictorial.
But modern DNA
tests were not around in 1956, and no DNA samples from the women exist
now. However, subsequence advances in science throw doubt on Emmimarie's
story. Read the explanation at the
Telegraph.