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 Grace Won, KQED [with CGS' Katie Hasson] | 12.02.2025
In the U.S., it’s illegal to edit genes in human embryos with the intention of creating a genetically engineered baby. But according to the Wall Street Journal, Bay Area startups are focused on just that. It wouldn’t be the first...
Several recent Biopolitical Times posts (1, 2, 3, 4) have called attention to the alarmingly rapid commercialization of “designer baby” technologies: polygenic embryo screening (especially its use to purportedly screen for traits like intelligence), in vitro gametogenesis (lab-made eggs and sperm), and heritable genome editing (also termed embryo editing or reproductive gene editing). Those three, together with artificial wombs, have been dubbed the “Gattaca stack” by Brian Armstrong, CEO of the cryptocurrency company...
By Emily Glazer, Katherine Long, Amy Dockser Marcus, The Wall Street Journal | 11.08.2025
For months, a small company in San Francisco has been pursuing a secretive project: the birth of a genetically engineered baby.
Backed by OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman and his husband, along with Coinbase co-founder and CEO Brian Armstrong, the startup—called...
By Antonio Regalado, MIT Technology Review | 10.31.2025
A West Coast biotech entrepreneur says he’s secured $30 million to form a public-benefit company to study how to safely create genetically edited babies, marking the largest known investment into the taboo technology.
The new company, called Preventive, is...