Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 19 November 2008 | Nature | doi:10.1038/456288a
Gene testing of embryos needs guiding
Experts caution against use of tests for adult-onset disorders.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
The ethical question of today is "Should we do this?" Most would grant a "yes" to some degree or another, though few to the degree of early twentieth century eugenics. I think we'll slide toward saying "yes" more and more as our ability to stave off disease becomes both more refined and more feasible. What happens though when this is commonplace? What happens in a country where birthrates are already under supervision when the ability to weed out future healthcare liabilities is readily available? Is it economically ethical for a country to choose NOT to use such a system to spare itself certain "unecessary" costs so that it can spend those funds toward things like disaster relief and infrastructure over which it has no control? Don't get me wrong... I'm not advocating for such a system. (I personally think that these tools should only be used to reject terminally afflicted embryos and to make parents aware of what hurdles their children may face so that they may face them prepared.) If we think we have a hard time making ethical calls now though, the future might make our heads spin!
Testing for common diseases are not desirable at this point in time because mostly associated SNPs have not been established as causal. Unless causality of single/multiple variants are demonstarted in type 2 diabetes, for example,the tests may not mean much and may even be misleading at times.