Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Ethics Watch
  • Published:

PGD: New ethical challenges

Nature Reviews Genetics volume 4, page 6 (2003)Cite this article

First developed as an alternative to amniocentesis for screening embryos for autosomal and sex-linked diseases, PGD is now used to screen for other genetic mutations, for disease susceptibility and to identify prospective children who can make haematopoietic stem cell donations to existing children1. Unless one objects to screening embryos (and many do), these practices should be ethically acceptable to those who otherwise accept PGD.

More controversial is PGD for non-medical uses, such as sex selection, because it is feared that sex selection, particularly of firstborns, entrenches pro-male, sexist social attitudes. The ethical assessment shifts, however, when the sexes of only second, or later, children are chosen. If no sex is disproportionately favoured, the threat to women and the risk of unbalanced sex ratios are considerably reduced. Ethical debate then focuses on whether desire for family 'gender balance' justifies IVF and embryo screening2. While many will oppose this practice, we are likely to see an increased acceptance of PGD for this use.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. 1. Braude, P. et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Nature Rev. Genet. 3, 941–953 (2002)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 2. Robertson, J. A. Sex selection for gender variety by preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Fertil. Steril. 78, 463 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3. Nance, W. E. & Pandya, A. in Genetics and Auditory Disorders (eds Keats, B. J. B., Popper, A. N. & Fay, R. R.) 67–91 (Springer, New York, 2002)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. 4. Levy, N. Deafness, culture and choice. J. Med. Ethics 28, 284–285 (2002)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Texas School of Law,

    John Robertson

Authors
  1. John Robertson
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Robertson , J. PGD: New ethical challenges. Nat Rev Genet 4, 6 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg984

Download citation

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg984

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing