Polygenic risk scoring of human embryos: a qualitative study of media coverage.
Embryo polygenic profiling
Ethics
Media coverage
PGT-P
Polygenic risk scores
Preimplantation genetic testing
Qualitative analysis
Journal
BMC medical ethics
ISSN: 1472-6939
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Ethics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088680
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 09 2021
18 09 2021
Historique:
received:
12
04
2021
accepted:
09
09
2021
entrez:
19
9
2021
pubmed:
20
9
2021
medline:
28
9
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Current preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) technologies enable embryo genotyping across the whole genome. This has led to the development of polygenic risk scoring of human embryos (PGT-P). Recent implementation of PGT-P, including screening for intelligence, has been extensively covered by media reports, raising major controversy. Considering the increasing demand for assisted reproduction, we evaluated how information about PGT-P is communicated in press media and explored the diversity of ethical themes present in the public debate. LexisNexis Academic database and Google News were searched to identify articles about polygenic embryo screening. This led to 535 news articles. 59 original articles met the inclusion criteria. Inductive content analysis was used to analyse these articles. 8.8% of articles gave embryo polygenic scoring a positive portrayal, while 36.8% expressed a negative attitude. 54.4% were neutral, mostly highlighting limited practical value of the technology in in vitro fertilization settings. We identified five main ethical themes that are also present in academic literature and the broader debate on reproductive technologies: a slippery slope towards designer babies, well-being of the child and parents, impact on society, deliberate choice and societal readiness. Implementation of embryo polygenic profiling engenders a need for specific recommendations. Current media analysis discloses important ethical themes to consider when creating future guidelines for PGT-P.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Current preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) technologies enable embryo genotyping across the whole genome. This has led to the development of polygenic risk scoring of human embryos (PGT-P). Recent implementation of PGT-P, including screening for intelligence, has been extensively covered by media reports, raising major controversy. Considering the increasing demand for assisted reproduction, we evaluated how information about PGT-P is communicated in press media and explored the diversity of ethical themes present in the public debate.
METHODS
LexisNexis Academic database and Google News were searched to identify articles about polygenic embryo screening. This led to 535 news articles. 59 original articles met the inclusion criteria. Inductive content analysis was used to analyse these articles.
RESULTS
8.8% of articles gave embryo polygenic scoring a positive portrayal, while 36.8% expressed a negative attitude. 54.4% were neutral, mostly highlighting limited practical value of the technology in in vitro fertilization settings. We identified five main ethical themes that are also present in academic literature and the broader debate on reproductive technologies: a slippery slope towards designer babies, well-being of the child and parents, impact on society, deliberate choice and societal readiness.
CONCLUSIONS
Implementation of embryo polygenic profiling engenders a need for specific recommendations. Current media analysis discloses important ethical themes to consider when creating future guidelines for PGT-P.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34537037
doi: 10.1186/s12910-021-00694-4
pii: 10.1186/s12910-021-00694-4
pmc: PMC8449454
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
125Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Fertil Steril. 2018 Aug;110(3):351-352
pubmed: 30098681
Qual Health Res. 2005 Nov;15(9):1277-88
pubmed: 16204405
Cell. 2019 Nov 27;179(6):1424-1435.e8
pubmed: 31761530
Reprod Biomed Online. 2019 Aug;39 Suppl 1:e1-e4
pubmed: 31421710
J Med Ethics. 2019 May;45(5):346-350
pubmed: 30745435
Reprod Biomed Online. 2017 Sep;35(3):264-271
pubmed: 28648921
Genet Med. 2021 Mar;23(3):432-434
pubmed: 33106616
Nat Genet. 2019 Apr;51(4):584-591
pubmed: 30926966
Eur J Med Genet. 2019 Aug;62(8):103647
pubmed: 31026593
N Engl J Med. 2021 Jul 1;385(1):78-86
pubmed: 34192436
Prenat Diagn. 2015 May;35(5):420-7
pubmed: 25233815
Fertil Steril. 2005 Jun;83(6):1612-21
pubmed: 15950627
Eur J Hum Genet. 2017 Oct;25(10):1113-1117
pubmed: 28905883
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2019 Dec 04;10:845
pubmed: 31920964
AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2018 Jul-Sep;9(3):181-193
pubmed: 30235076
Hum Reprod. 2019 Aug 1;34(8):1608-1619
pubmed: 31348829
Fertil Steril. 2019 Dec;112(6):973-977
pubmed: 31703942
Fertil Steril. 2018 Mar;109(3):429-436
pubmed: 29566854
Hum Reprod. 2017 Mar 1;32(3):485-491
pubmed: 28158511
Prenat Diagn. 2019 Apr;39(5):344-350
pubmed: 30834542
Sci Eng Ethics. 2013 Jun;19(2):321-35
pubmed: 22045550
Fertil Steril. 2018 Aug;110(3):353-361
pubmed: 30098682
Hum Reprod Open. 2020 May 29;2020(3):hoaa018
pubmed: 32500103
Hum Reprod. 2020 Mar 27;35(3):490-493
pubmed: 32100030
Nature. 2019 Mar;567(7747):165-168
pubmed: 30867611
Nat Commun. 2019 Jul 25;10(1):3328
pubmed: 31346163
Hum Reprod. 2017 Mar 1;32(3):687-697
pubmed: 28158716
Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2020 May 1;10(5):
pubmed: 31506325
AMA J Ethics. 2018 Dec 1;20(12):E1160-1167
pubmed: 30585579
Eur J Health Law. ;24(2):160-74
pubmed: 29210259
Genet Med. 2019 Oct;21(10):2184-2189
pubmed: 30976097
Nat Rev Genet. 2018 Sep;19(9):581-590
pubmed: 29789686
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015 May;32(5):665-75
pubmed: 25758988
Reprod Biomed Online. 2015 Sep;31(3):394-403
pubmed: 26206283
Nat Rev Genet. 2013 Jul;14(7):507-15
pubmed: 23774735
Genet Med. 2014 Nov;16(11):838-45
pubmed: 24810687
Genet Med. 2018 Sep;20(9):950-956
pubmed: 29300377
Genet Med. 2014 Jul;16(7):522-8
pubmed: 24357851
Reprod Biomed Soc Online. 2016 Dec;3:41-47
pubmed: 28959787
Hum Reprod Open. 2020 May 29;2020(3):hoaa017
pubmed: 32500102