Topics in prenatal diagnosis: Cosmetic enhancement, bullying, homophobia ....

The British Human Fertilisation and Embroyology Authority has granted a license to a London family clinic to screen embryos for a genetic disorder which causes a severe squint. The action is being described as the first time a British clinic will be allowed to screen embryos for cosmetic problems. Critics say the action is inappropriate because the condition is not life-threatening. Story from the BBC here; from the London Telegraph here.

The Telegraph account quotes Prof. Gedis Gurdzinskas, who received the license, as saying that he would screen for any genetic factor, cosmetic or otherwise, that might cause a family severe distress.

When asked if he would screen embryos for factors like hair colour, he said: "If there is a cosmetic aspect to an individual case I would assess it on its merits.

"[Hair colour] can be a cause of bullying which can lead to suicide. With the agreement of the HFEA, I would do it. If a parent suffered from asthma, and it was possible to detect the genetic factor for this, I would do it. It all depends on the family's distress."

As long as there is money to be made screening pregnancies and embryos, there will be no shortage of people willing and eager to perform the service. But as the saying goes, the fact that we can do a thing is not an argument that we should. Increasingly, it seems, we are turning to market forces to eliminate problems that more properly should be addressed by social action. Prenatal screening to avoid bullying by those who don't like our hair color? Please.

If parents perceive themselves as being morally obliged to create "perfect" children who will not arouse social opprobrium, society will inevitably become less tolerant of those who are different, whether that difference resides in disability, a luxurious crop of red hair, or sexual orientation. For more on the topic of selecting for sexual orientation, see Alice D. Dreger on the Bioethics Forum: "Liberty and Solidarity: May We Choose Children for Sexual Orientation?"

She argues that prenatal screening attaches negative attitudes to the conditions that are screened, recounting a case in which a friend was "scolded" by a stranger for having a child with Trisomy 21 (Down Syndrome).

"I can fully imagine a scenario where, thirty years from now, a woman tells a friend her son has come out as gay, only to have the friend respond, “Didn’t you get the test?!” Could we really imagine that offering such a test would have no negative impact on how an already-homophobic culture views people who are gay (and their parents, for that matter)?"

Here's her conclusion about prenatal screening and termination for homosexuality (which she credits to researcher Simon LeVay:

"... we shouldn't ban it. Because that would be allowing governments to make decisions about our reproductive choices, which isn't a good idea. . . . But I reserve the right to become hysterical about it.”

Now that's productive.

More on the so-called "gay gene" from the Toronto Star here.