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 Zusha Elinson, The Wall Street Journal | 08.12.2025
BERKELEY, Calif.—Tsvi Benson-Tilsen, a mathematician, spent seven years researching how to keep an advanced form of artificial intelligence from destroying humanity before he concluded that stopping it wasn’t possible—at least anytime soon.
Now, he’s turned his considerable brainpower to promoting...
By Rob Stein, NPR [cites CGS' Katie Hasson] | 08.06.2025
A Chinese scientist horrified the world in 2018 when he revealed he had secretly engineered the birth of the world's first gene-edited babies.
His work was reviled as reckless and unethical because, among other reasons, gene-editing was so new...
By Susanna Smith, Genetic Frontiers | 07.28.2025
Key Topics
How does the American far right view genetics and genetic technologies?
What is the history of the American cultural pursuit of trying to choose smarter children? What has science shown us about the relationship of heredity and intelligence...
By Arthur Caplan and James Tabery, Scientific American | 07.28.2025
An understandable ethics outcry greeted the June announcement of a software platform that offers aspiring parents “genetic optimization” of their embryos. Touted by Nucleus Genomics’ CEO Kian Sadeghi, the $5,999 service, dubbed “Nucleus Embryo,” promised optimization of...