British fertility clinics raise scientific and ethical objections over patients sending embryos’ genetic data abroad for analysis

Couples undergoing IVF in the UK are exploiting an apparent legal loophole to rank their embryos based on genetic predictions of IQ, height and health, the Guardian has learned.

The controversial screening technique, which scores embryos based on their DNA, is not permitted at UK fertility clinics and critics have raised scientific and ethical objections, saying the method is unproven. But under data protection laws, patients can – and in some cases have – demanded their embryos’ raw genetic data and sent it abroad for analysis in an effort to have smarter, healthier children.

Dr Cristina Hickman, a senior embryologist and founder of Avenues fertility clinic in London, said rapid advances in embryo screening techniques and the recent launch of several US companies offering so-called polygenic screening had left clinics facing “legal and ethical confusion”.

  • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    3 hours ago

    but make people pay […] if they want the additional data to screen for more precise things.

    Isn’t that just worse than giving the data to everyone, though? The more expensive you make it, the more of an exclusively ‘rich people’ service it becomes. As if kids with rich parents don’t already have enough advantages in life, let’s make sure they’re physically peak, too?

    • Artisian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      I mentioned regulation in that sentence and you '…'ed it out… Clearly I’m ok with putting in guard rails, and I see no practical barriers to doing so. Feels a little bad faith to ignore the counter argument that’s right there.

      (Severe edit cause I confused the conversation)

      • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        You said ‘or otherwise regulate’, not ‘and regulate’, so I logically assumed you were making two independent proposals and chose to respond to one of them, omitting the other for clarity.

        I don’t even think it’s a counter-argument, really. As soon as prosperity becomes a factor, it’s a “rich people only” feature, regardless of what other guardrails are in place.

        • Artisian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          Most (all?) healthcare has been rich people only before it became broadly available. Usually we don’t accept that as a reason to ban it though; what’s so different here?

          • Zombie@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            23 minutes ago

            Not in the UK, which this thread is about.

            The NHS provides healthcare free at the point of service, for all.

            Not everywhere is the United States of Fascist America.

          • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            32 minutes ago

            Eugenics aren’t suddenly okay if they’re only accessible to some people. Healthcare on the other hand should be available to everyone but it’s still a net positive even if it isn’t available to everyone.