Friday, February 29, 2008
This past weekend, the LA Times ran an article discussing at-home gender test kits and their high error rate. Karen Kaplan reports,
Amid the tumult of the delivery room, Rohit and Geeta Jain were calm about one thing: Their new baby was sure to be a boy. Six months earlier, the Jains had spent more than $300 for a test that screened a minute quantity of Geeta's blood for traces of male DNA. The testing company said it was 95% accurate in determining the sex of a baby, even as early as the eighth week of pregnancy. After six hours in the delivery room, Rohit gaped as his wife gave birth to a daughter. "There's only two choices -- either it's a boy or a girl," said Rohit, 35, a computer scientist in the Vancouver, Canada, suburb of Surrey. "I couldn't fathom how it could be wrong." Like scores of other expectant parents, the Jains had stumbled into a corner of the booming genomics industry and discovered that the claims of some genetic entrepreneurs have gone beyond what science can provide.
The tests are loosely based on legitimate scientific research, much of which has been funded by the
National Institutes of Health
, among others. But often, the companies' claims of accuracy have not been backed up by independent laboratory analysis. Thousands of consumers have bought tests -- and analysts say the number will only grow as entrepreneurs find more ways to market the mysteries of the human genome. The Federal Trade Commission, which protects consumers from false and misleading advertising, has warned buyers to be skeptical of at-home genetic tests, which are now unregulated.
William Saletan at Slate.com has some thoughts about these tests, sex selection, and the LA Times article. He focuses on the rationale for these tests and the fact that the LA Times article barely blinks about the sex selection that occurs and instead concentrates on the error rate. He writes,
Today, however, prenatal sex tests have come down in price to $300 or less, cheap enough to sell directly to would-be parents. And instead of waiting the "10 to 16 weeks needed for traditional medical tests, such as ultrasound," you can now find out at just five to seven weeks whether you're carrying a boy or a girl. That's early enough to get the most basic surgical abortion or, possibly, a chemical abortion instead.
Kaplan's reporting shows how the abortion option looms behind these tests. The Jains considered abortion but decided against it. Another woman "wanted a girl so badly that she and her husband spent $25,000 on in-vitro fertilization so that doctors could select female embryos to implant in her womb." The woman took a test at 10 weeks to make sure she wasn't carrying a male fetus. A third woman who got a bogus result from her test says "there are women out there who experience really big disappointment. They really want to give their husbands the little boy they want, or a little girl, and they will abort based on these results."
One company tells Kaplan it has sold 3,500 prenatal test kits. How many thousands more have been sold by other companies? How many of those tests have led to abortions? Nobody knows. And that's the point: Because the test is taken at home, nobody but the couple has to know that the subsequent abortion is for sex selection.
But abortion isn't the focus of the article. The focus of the article is that these tests often err. The very idea of elective prenatal sex-testing used to be controversial, especially in light of rampant sex-selective abortion in Asia. Now these tests are being bought, used, and reported just like any other prenatal test. The couples who use them are described just as sympathetically. The problem isn't that they're screening their offspring for sex. The problem is that in doing so they're being thwarted by flawed technology and exaggerated marketing.
If you blame the Times for this loss of dismay, you're missing the larger trend. The article exists because the underlying stigma has already decayed. Scores of women are suing over erroneous sex tests. The Jains are unashamed to tell their story and put their names on it. So are the other women quoted in the article. As technology makes it possible to break the sex-selection taboo privately and inexpensively, the practice spreads, and we get used to it. The question of whether to restrict it becomes, as with other prenatal tests, a mere question of consumer protection.