Reflections on reactions to the [Nuffield] Council’s report on NIPT
By Catherine Joynson,
Nuffield Blog
| 03. 09. 2017
The Nuffield Council on Bioethics’ report on non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) was published last week, with a launch event in the House of Commons. The event itself was full of emotion, reflecting the real and important impact that NIPT and prenatal testing can have on people’s lives. The report has also elicited a number of other reactions. Having spent the last 12 months or so talking to a wide range of people and organisations with an interest in NIPT, this does not surprise me. As we didn’t have time to answer every question at the event, this article attempts to continue the conversation, respond to some of the specific comments that have been aired, and describe how we came to our conclusions and recommendations.
Too restrictive or too permissive?
Some groups have commented that our conclusions are too restrictive, particularly in relation to our recommendation that NIPT should only be used to test for significant medical conditions or impairments (with some exceptions). Others believe that they are too permissive, for example that we have missed the opportunity to support campaigns to...
Related Articles
By Roxanne Khamsi, The Atlantic | 07.07.2026
When Ludivine Verboogen and Romain Alderweireldt’s third child was born in Belgium in late 2015, they marveled at his long fingers. Perhaps one day he will be a famous pianist, they thought. But soon Ludivine grew worried that her son...
By Michael Le Page , New Scientist | 06.25.2026
We now know the master gene that controls embryonic development in people. Called NANOG, its role has been identified by making precise changes to the DNA of fertilised eggs using a technique called CRISPR base editing.
The discovery might lead...
By Editorial Staff, The Guardian | 07.05.2026
Ever since Crispr-Cas9 gene-editing technology emerged in the early 2010s, ethical questions around genetically altered humans, so-called designer babies, have become increasingly urgent. There is already a worldwide legal prohibition. No country currently allows human germline editing (meaning genetic changes...
By Sarah Norcross, Sandy Starr, Amanda Cooney, and Anneliese Burton, BioNews | 07.06.2026