Op-Ed: Baby Genetically Designed to Be Breast Cancer-Free

The first British baby to be genetically designed to be free of breast cancer will be born soon; the family has a history of breast cancer.

The decision to rely on genetic screening was made because the baby's parents did not want their child to develop breast cancer as so many of their relatives had previously done. If the child was not screened any girl that would have been born would likely develop a fast spreading, hard-to-treat form of breast cancer. Embryos were created, by the doctors at University College Hospital, London, through IVF then screened them for the deadly gene before transferring only healthy ones into the womb. The sex of the baby is not being released. Not surprisingly there are at least two sides in this story. One, the medical medical director of the hospital's assisted conception unit Paul Serhal believes the pioneering treatment, which was carried out on the NHS, allowed the parents the chance of a healthy family. It is possible many more couples could benefit from pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD. On the other side, pro-life campaigners claim it is morally wrong to weed out imperfect babies and describe the technique, in which unhealthy embryos are left to perish, as a 'tool for search and kill'. The mother-to-be is a 27-year-old London woman wants to remain anonymous. She opted for screening after three generations of her husband's family developed an inherited form of breast cancer while still in their 20s. The 28-year-old father is a carrier and those diagnosed with the disease include his mother, sister, grandmother and cousin. She said: 'We had been through his sister being ill, so it was something we had seen first hand. 'I thought this was something I had to try because, if we had a daughter with this gene, and she was ill, I couldn't look her in the face and say I didn't try.' If the couple had relied on natural childbirth , any child would have a 50 per cent chance of carrying the rogue gene. And any girl with the BRCA1 gene would have an 80 per cent chance of developing a fast-spreading, hard-to treat form of breast cancer. In addition, the gene also gives a woman a 60 per cent chance of ovarian cancer and raises a man's risk of prostate cancer. The doctors used IVF techniques to create a selection of embryos to screen it out,. When the cells were three days old, one cell was plucked from each and analysed for the rogue gene. Of the five embryos,two were found to be free of the gene and these were transferred into the woman, of which one resulted in the pregnancy. Serhal has already created babies free from inherited eye and bowel cancers, said: 'A patient doesn't enter into this procedure lightly. They had genetic counselling and a lot of soul searching before going into this treatment.' PGD, until recently, was used only for genes which invariably cause incurable diseases when inherited – such as those behind cystic fibrosis. However, two years ago, the Government's fertility watchdog, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, relaxed the rules. Doctors can now screen for genes which, while raising the risk of illness, do not always lead to the condition. In addition. they can also look for embryos free of flaws which cause disease late in life, including a rare inherited form of Alzheimer's. Serhal said: 'This is a serious disease, not a physical characteristic. We are not screening for something banal or irrelevant.' In 2007, last year, another couple spoke of their desire to use the technique to create a breast cancer-free baby. The couple argued it would spare their children a devastating genetic inheritance. The woman, who lost her mother, maternal grandmother and great grandmother to cancer, said: 'I've lived much of my life with cancer and death, and fear that I might have to face it and might pass on the risk to my children. 'This gives us the chance to make sure our daughters won't have the same experience.' Her husband, a biological scientist, said: 'I do understand the arguments against it, that the cancer might not develop for 30-plus years, but you have to consider that Helen has no female family left. It seems very unfair that a child of ours should have to go through the same thing when we have an opportunity to stop it. 'There is a world of difference between a disease like breast cancer and picking out blue or brown eyes.' Josephine Quintavalle, of the campaign group Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said: 'What we want is a cure for breast cancer, not to eliminate those who carry it. 'I do think that by the time this baby grows up we will have cures for breast cancer. It is one of the diseases where we are making good progress.' As someone who choose to be childless, I approach this story with caution; I can understand the parents' concern they do not want their child to suffer. However, now that the door is open to the creation of genetically designed children where does it stop and who makes the decision to stop it? What comes to mind as I think about this is the old battle about the ends do not justify the means. The parents will say they do and in their particular case, maybe so. But where does the line get drawn? I do not see this stopping here but now that it is something we can do will we only use it in extreme cases or will we gradually apply the skill to an ever broadening range of what some consider to be disadvantages?