New York Times examines debate over preimplantation genetic diagnosis

The New York Times on Sunday examined the debate over preimplantation genetic diagnosis, a technique that allows physicians to identify embryos without genetic defects or chromosomal abnormalities and then implant the embryos most likely to result in a live, healthy infant.

According to the Times, a "growing number of couples" are using PGD to "detect a predisposition to cancers that may or may not develop later in life and are often treatable if they do" (Harmon, New York Times, 9/3).

PGD -- which is used during in vitro fertilization -- is an increasingly popular way to ensure a healthy pregnancy for women who have experienced several miscarriages or for couples who are carriers of a genetic disorder.

However, some experts urge caution when considering PGD because of a lack of data on the procedure's success and failure rates and long-term health risks for the resulting child.

Couples also can use the procedure to select embryos with tissue types identical to those of a severely ill child for whom a perfect tissue match is their only possible treatment (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 11/22/05).

According to Salt Lake City-based Myriad Genetics, in the last five years the number of U.S. residents who have been tested for genetic mutations, such as "breast cancer-risk genes" has increased tenfold. An increased "interest in embryo testing is being driven largely by a greater knowledge of genetics among cancer patients and their family members," according to the Times.

Some opponents of the procedure believe that its high cost could lead to a "genetic class divide," the Times reports.

"From a technology perspective we can test anything," Mark Hughes, director of the Genesis Genetics Institute in Detroit, said, adding, "The issue becomes what is considered serious enough to warrant such testing."

Other critics of PGD say that it could be used to select for embryos with "less serious" diseases and characteristics that are "matters of preference," according to the Times.

However, proponents of the procedure say that failing to differentiate between people who want to avoid fatal genetic disorders and the concept of "designer babies" is "hurtful and misleading," the Times reports. Because the procedure is not regulated in the U.S., its frequency is unknown (New York Times, 9/3).