World-first IVF embryo test

[Pete]

found this in this mornings newspaper...


World-first IVF embryo test
From: The Sunday Mail (Qld) By Ainsley Pavey
May 14, 2006
A BRISBANE couple is set to give birth to a designer baby hand-picked from a test tube as part of a world-first IVF test.

The test, developed for Brisbane's City Fertility Centre, is set to revolutionise the booming IVF industry by allowing couples to select disease-free embryos.
They will also be able to pick the gender, and safeguard against lab mix-ups by providing a DNA swab to match with the embryos.

The test, available nationally from July 1, involves taking a single cell from a three-day-old embryo and screening it for chromosome abnormalities which can lead to miscarriage and diseases, including cystic fibrosis and Down, Edwards and Patau syndromes.

The molecular technology, known as MF-PCR or multiplex fluorescent polymerase chain reaction, will cut down the time it takes to scan embryos for abnormalities to just a few hours.

The $500 test is also predicted to slash the cost of IVF treatments from up to $20,000 each.


Advertisement:
CFC medical director Glenn Sterling said the test wasn't about producing "designer babies": ""We are examining embryos, not interfering with the genetic make-up. So many women go through IVF and they don't get pregnant, miscarry, or have a baby with major complications, and now they can go, 'Let's get pregnant the first time and not go through the heartache'."
The test took Griffith University's Prof Ian Findlay and scientists from South Australia-based company Gribble Molecular Science eight years to develop.



I found this interesting, but interested to hear your opinions...


Pete

 

[Faust]

Heh makes me think of the Trailer for X-Men 3, (booming Magneto voice) "They are trying to cure us! Well I say, WE are the cure!!"


Neat though. Thing is, if this starts to become standard practice and becomes very affordable, if it right to artificially hyper inflate the population curve with people that won't have natural diseases? Diseases exist for a reason you know...To help keep populations of any living creatures in check. What makes it worse, is that our lifespans are also increasing. So maybe in 30 years, we will have 100% hereditary disease free people who live to be 110 years old on average, and if you think our population issue is bad now...

 

[julie]

Pete,

This sounds a lot like PGD to me, which has been available in the US (not sure about elsewhere) for a few years now.

Do you know any more about it, or have you ever heard about PGD. I am interested in knowing if this is the same, or more advanced as PGD.

Thanks for sharing it though, I personally love stuff like this.

 

[Pete]

hehe can't wait to see X-men 3

Oh for sure, agree with you, when it comes down to it the planet will get rid of us...

For me though, the idea of being able screen embryo(e?)s for hereditary diseases is immensly helpful, i mean if it's possible to have a baby that's probably going to be healthy would be a godsend...if this process helps slash the price of IVF then that helps my partner and I no-end, cause we're going to have to pay for surrogacy as well...maybe?...dunno..she researched that hehe....ahhh ignorance is bliss...

another point too is, if someone really wants a particular sex of child and the technology is there then why not?...but it's not something we would do, would just be screening for us.

the $20,000 price tag is AuD...it's considerable too us, and if it increases the chance of having to pay once then that helps as well...

Julie...

To be honest I really don't know, it was just a small article in the local paper...but large paper though...I promise i'll get to you on that...they are saying it's ground breaking stuff though, results back in hours etc...i'll get back to you on it soon

 

[Pete]

Julie...

It seems currently they do the amniocentesis at 15-20 weeks which has a risk of miscarriage...with this procedure it's done at 3 days, before the embryo is placed inutero...eliminating the risk of miscarriage due to the amniocentesis, minimising cost and eliminating heartache...

I think also if the baby is found to have a problem at 15-20 weeks then all you can really do is pray and prepare.

think thats what the difference is.

 

[Faust]

Yeah it sounds like a big mixed blessing. One one end you have the reasons you stated, which make good sound sense. On the other end, you have the "this isn't right, and playing god" angle. And then on another end, you have the aspects of hyper inflating longevity and decreasing mortality, and we live on a planet that now has what? 6.5 billion people or something close to that? I believe in technology, but with some of these new advancements (not just medical), i'm seriously starting to discover ethical debates within myself I didn't think I previously had.

 

[Pete]

I'm the same Sean, but for me the ethical debate ended when we were put in this position, I feel there's an EXTREMELY fine line between helping couples and playing god, playing god for me would be choosing eye colour, hair etc etc, being able to minimise the chance of our baby going through something the same/similar to what my partner has gone through all her life, then for us, it's a no brainer...we all want to give our children the best that life can offer and by us HAVING to do IVF and surrogacy and having that option of screening pre-inutero then all I can say is thankyou God....because cost, WILL, in the end dictate whether my angel and I have a child of our own.

 

[anonymous]

In response to Pete when he said: <b>we all want to give our children the best that life can offer.</b>


I understand why you said what you said but I believe that this proceedure is not giving your child the best life has to offer. This proceedure is saying, "I will choose <b>which</b> child is worthy of moving forward and which one is not."


Under this criterial I would have been found unworthy....I have a big problem with that.


Correcting or aiding a health problem with treatments, proceedures and such is one thing but ending a life at the earliest stages because the child does not meet a certain standard, even if we are just talking health standard for now, is a slippery slope. Who next will be determined to be substandard?

Just something to think about.

 

[julie]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> Julie...
It seems currently they do the amniocentesis at 15-20 weeks which has a risk of miscarriage...with this procedure it's done at 3 days, before the embryo is placed inutero...eliminating the risk of miscarriage due to the amniocentesis, minimising cost and eliminating heartache...

I think also if the baby is found to have a problem at 15-20 weeks then all you can really do is pray and prepare.

think thats what the difference is. </end quote></div>

Pete, from your answer, this sounds very similar to PGD. PGD is not an amnio. On day 3 or day 5 of an embryo's growth (one fertilized outside the uterus of course) doctors will take a cell from the embryo and analyze it for common diseases, specific CF mutations (if the parents know what mutations they carry) and even the gender.

Is this article from the US? I ask only because PGD has been available here for 2 maybe 3+ years now. I wonder if there is some advance to this testing, or if it's just found it's way into other countries. Here's something regarding PGD, <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.cysticfibrosismaleinfertility.com/ART_PDG.html">http://www.cysticfibrosismalei...ility.com/ART_PDG.html</a>. Would you say the two are similar? I would like to update my website if this is the hottest and newest thing.

Thanks