S E Kelly1, H R Farrimond. 1. ESRC Centre for Genomics in Society, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK. s.e.kelly@exeter.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: Non-invasive prenatal genetic diagnostic (NIPD) tests are being developed using cell-free fetal DNA in the maternal circulation. NIPD tests avoid or reduce the need for invasive diagnostic procedures for conditions like Down syndrome. Discussion of ethical and social implications of these techniques is increasing. We report findings from a study of public attitudes relevant to the introduction of NIPD. A key aim was to examine the range of attitudes relevant to NIPD within a diverse sample. METHODS: Qualitative analysis of written free text 'first responses' to a written neutral description of NIPD as part of a Q-methodology study conducted with a purposive sample of the UK population (n = 71). RESULTS: The majority (63%) of respondents described their first response as positive. However, respondents displayed ambivalence, expressing positive views of individual/medical rationale for NIPD and unease concerning public health rationale and societal implications. Unease related to eugenic reasoning underlying existing prenatal testing, 'too much control' in reproduction, commercial provision, information and support requirements for expanded testing, and limiting the use of testing. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that regulating and monitoring commercial provision of NIPD services, and monitoring introduction and clinical use, are a public preference.
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: Non-invasive prenatal genetic diagnostic (NIPD) tests are being developed using cell-free fetal DNA in the maternal circulation. NIPD tests avoid or reduce the need for invasive diagnostic procedures for conditions like Down syndrome. Discussion of ethical and social implications of these techniques is increasing. We report findings from a study of public attitudes relevant to the introduction of NIPD. A key aim was to examine the range of attitudes relevant to NIPD within a diverse sample. METHODS: Qualitative analysis of written free text 'first responses' to a written neutral description of NIPD as part of a Q-methodology study conducted with a purposive sample of the UK population (n = 71). RESULTS: The majority (63%) of respondents described their first response as positive. However, respondents displayed ambivalence, expressing positive views of individual/medical rationale for NIPD and unease concerning public health rationale and societal implications. Unease related to eugenic reasoning underlying existing prenatal testing, 'too much control' in reproduction, commercial provision, information and support requirements for expanded testing, and limiting the use of testing. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that regulating and monitoring commercial provision of NIPD services, and monitoring introduction and clinical use, are a public preference.