Gill

Imrendip Gill

Professor Lee

Writing 10

4 November 2014

Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis

Ban Frangez, Helena. "Preterm Delivery Risk Factors In Singletons Born After In Vitro

Fertilization Procedures." European Journal Of Obstetrics & Gynecology &

Reproductive Biology 176.(2014): 183-186. Academic Search Complete. Web. 20 Oct.

2014.

Frangez begins his piece by explaining that vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures have a

great risk of preterm delivery (PD) and provides risk factors that may possibly be

avoided. His study was dependent on 1127 deliveries post IVF and measured preterm

delivery less than 37 weeks. The articles main point is that the statistics collected support

that IVF effects PD. The statistics that were provided showed that PD was seen 1.5 times

more often in IVF deliveries than normal reproductive deliveries (2). These results were

helpful for the reader to understand every possible outcome that was seen and how often

it is prevalent (2-3). IVF was also seen to cause conization, chronic renal disease and a

BMI greater than 30 (2). Frangez provided these statistics to show the effects of IVF

compared to normal births. This data was not biased because it also contained a control

group that was used to compare the results to. Frangez also collected data retrieved from

women after PD that was used to find risk factors and side effects after IVF and PD (3).

These statistics were helpful because most articles focus on the effects to the child rather

1

Gill

than how the mother can be effected. It also allowed the reader to understand there are

long term effects associated with IVF and PD. This data was not biased or used to skew

the opinion of the reader. Frangez was very unbiased when providing the results focusing

on not showing his opinions in the text. Frangez’s conclusions were compared to similar

research that showed the significance and validity of his conclusions. The relevant

research provided was credible because the same conclusions were seen throughout many

articles. I will use this in my research paper to show the negative effects and possible

outcomes to IVF. Due to IVF being a necessary procedure in PGD, I will use this article

to show the negative aspects regarding PGD and how a mother and child are effected in

the short term as well as long-term. Frangez should have included data retrieved from

women with a history of PD and compared them to the data of women with one case of

PD after IVF. This would have been an interesting variable to compare to the data

retrieved in the other graphs. This study was done to understand the risks associated with

PGD and to show that PGD is not safe.

Davis, Lynn. "A Cost-Benefit Analysis Of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis

For Carrier Couples Of Cystic Fibrosis." Fertility & Sterility 93.6 (2010): 1793-

1804. Academic Search Complete. Web. 29 Oct. 2014.

Davis’s article highlights the costs of PGD and IVF compared to the costs of treatment of

cystic fibrosis. He shows that the costs of PGD is significantly lower than the costs of

treating a patient with CF. The most significant conclusion she had made was that PGD

and IV costs up to 12,500 combined, but the cost of treating CF is up to 15,000 per year

2

Gill

(2). Davis provided many statistics to validate her claims as well as providing citations of

relevant articles to show her research to be true. She also provided several possible

outcomes to PGD to show the reader the effects PGD may have including: including no

pregnancy, miscarriage, elective abortion, birth of a healthy baby, birth of a CF-effected

baby, or multiple birth (each normal or effected by CF) (3). This was a very useful

portion in her article because it served to show that her article included each aspect and

possibility that may occur with PGD. She also showed that there was no bias by including

the negative aspects. By providing both sides of the issue, Davis is being informative and

not skewing the reader’s opinion. Another important aspect Davis provides is “the net

benefit of a healthy child born in 2007 ($575,392), and of a CF-effected child born in

2007 (-$166,180) were computed by subtracting the present value of lifetime medical

costs from the present value of lifetime earnings (5). This is very important to the reader

to review because this information’s includes data of a healthy child, which shows a

positive net benefit, and a CF child, which shows a negative net benefit. By providing

this information the author is providing a control group to compare a CF child to. Davis

should have included the costs of women who initially did not have successful a PGD

and IVF pregnancy and had to endure the procedure more than once. This information

would show a higher increase of costs for PGD than normally expected. Davis also

compares his finding with relevant research that was found ot be credible with sowed his

findings to be true. I will use this article in my essay to show the cost effectiveness of

PGD and how parents would be spending more money without PGD. I will also include

the negative effects included in this article in comparison to Verlinsky (2005) and

3

Gill

Frangez (2014) to strengthen the claims of PGD being associated with having many

negative complications.

Derks-Smeets. "Decision-Making On Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis

And Prenatal Diagnosis: A Challenge For Couples With Hereditary Breast And

Ovarian Cancer." Human Reproduction 29.5 (2014): 1103-1112. Academic

Search Complete. Web. 22 Oct. 2014.

The main point of this article was to address the reasons and effects that mothers

with ovarian and breast cancer address before undergoing PGD. This perspective will be

used in my research paper to show that PGD can prevent cancer from being hereditary to

a child. This article was shown to be biased when the author claimed that mothers

“consequently weigh the few important advantages of PGD against numerous smaller

disadvantages” (1). The author specifically says “smaller disadvantages” to show that

there are more positive outcomes and introduces a bias. The article also provided the

positive outcomes, protecting the child and family from the mutation, and many smaller

undergoing In vitro fertilization and low chance of pregnancy (2). These “smaller

disadvantages,” when compared to Frangez’s (2014) and Galbaya’s claims regarding IVF

complications, do not seem very “small.” Upon comparison, Derek’s conclusions do not

see validated, his piece also does not include statistics regarding his conclusions. This

piece could be improved by providing statistics collected rather than just conclusions.

This article was funded by the Dutch breast cancer foundation Stichting Pink Ribbon, this

may be reviewed to find bias as well. Due to the sponsor being a Breast cancer

4

Gill

foundation, the conclusions from the start were to be positive and serve to outweigh the

“smaller disadvantages” (2). I will compare this article to Gelbaya’s (2010) article

regarding cancer being a side effect of IVF for PGD. I will compare those negative

effects to Derek’s data revealing that PGD will allow for a decreased risk of cancer being

hereditary to a fetus. Providing both aspects of cancer related to PGD will provide both a

negative and positive outcome of PGD on cancer. This study was done to show why

mothers choose to have PGD and to show other mothers wishing to undergo PGD that

they can relate to previous PGD patients.

Drüsedau, Marion. "PGD For Hereditary Breast And Ovarian Cancer: The Route

To Universal Tests For BRCA1 And BRCA2 Mutation Carriers."European

Journal Of Human Genetics 21.12 (2013): 1361-1368. Academic Search

Complete. Web. 29 Oct. 2014.

Drüsedeau’s study involved applying the PGD technique upon 73 patients with breast and

ovarian cancer by altering the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. The purpose of this study was

to reveal the effects of PGD and to conclude its safety. This study revealed that out of the

73 embryos, only 3 remained unhealthy embryos. He also explained that 23.5% of the

successful embryos were found to have a fatal heartbeat (1). By including that statistic,

the author allowed the reader to understand the effect PGD had on the embryo rather than

just having a success and failure variable. It also shows the unexpected effects PGD may

have. Drüsedeau includes a section in his article called Conflicts of Interest, and states

“The authors declare no conflict of interest” (4). Introducing this section shows that there

are no bias in this study that will skew the results. The author also shows little bias

5

Gill

throughout his article by only stating the data retrieved and little opinions regarding the

conclusions. Every claim and conclusion reached was supported by relevant research,

which shows the author to be credible as well as his sources. The author should have

included the number of women of the 73 that had a history of hereditary cancer, this

variable would have been very significant on the conclusions and showed that PGD can

help women with a history of hereditary cancer by erasing or editing the genes involved

with cancer in the embryo. He also should have included separate data for ovarian cancer

and breast cancer, this would have been helpful in analyzing the success rate of PGD on

each cancer. I will use this article in my essay to show the effects of PGD allowing for

the eradication of cancer on an embryo. I will also include the portion of this article

including the data regarding a fatal heart beat being found to show that although there are

significant positive outcomes, there are still fatal effects being seen. I will also compare

this article with Eldar (2014) due to their similar conclusions of PGD eradication

hereditary cancer. I will contrast the article with Gelbaya (2010) because he concluded

cancer being an effect of IVF. I will introduce the idea that cancer can be caused by IVF

and PGD but can also be eradicated by it.

Edwards, Bob. "Designer Evolution: A Transhumanist Manifesto." Future Survey 28.4

(2006): 16. Academic Search Complete. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.

Edwards highlights the effects of reproductive medicine on society as well as their

moral implications. He compares the first implications of test tube babies to how society

may think of PGD. He claims that regulation based on ethics would have to be guidlined

6

Gill

by highly trained moralists such as politicians, philosophers, and lawyers due to their

abilities to make decisions based on society not morals (2). HE addresses the implications

on society and how families of high and low income could be affected (4). This piece is

not bias due to the way the information is presented, it does not show any opinions just

research. The author should have included statistics and data retrieved by himself rather

than just relying on others research. He also should have included more research on the

gap that can be viewed in the future of high-income verses low income families. HE also

should have introduced a political party standpoint because he introduces politicians

regulating PGD. He does introduce other research that validates his conclusions. The

research shown is also credible because he presented multiple researches that reached the

same conclusions as him. This study was done to analyze the ethical perspective of PGD

and to understand the effects on society. I will use this paper in comparison with the

economical viewpoints to show various perspectives. I will also include the ethical and

social perspectives of the gap that can me seen in the future between income families.

Eldar-Geva. "Neonatal Outcome After Preimplantation Genetic

Diagnosis." Fertility & Sterility 102.4 (2014): 1016-1021. Academic Search

Complete. Web. 22 Oct. 2014.

This study's main objective was to assess whether the embryo biopsy procedure

for PGD affects outcomes in newborns. It was done in order to show the effects of ICSI

compared to IVF and to present data proving IFV is safer that ICSI The main findings of

7

Gill

this study are that there are no increased risks of intrauterine growth or low birth rate in

singleton or twin pregnancies after PGD. However, pregnancies after intracytoplasmic

sperm injection, injecting sperm directly into an egg, are at increased risk for these

complications (ICSI) (3). This piece serves to present that PGD has a low risk of negative

complications compared to ICSI. Geva continuously compared the data collected

between PGD, ICSI, and spontaneous conception (SC) and skewed the presented analysis

in favor of PGD by comparing healthy birth of SC to the less healthy ICSI births in tables

1 and 2 (2-3). This showed that the data and conclusions were biased and presented in a

way that favored PGD. Although there was a clear bias, the author did present related

credible articles that he continuously referenced in order to validate the claims made. He

also presented contradictory research, “A few reassuring studies have been published on

the outcomes for children born after PGD: no higher rates of congenital defects have been

observed at birth in children conceived by IVF-ICSI in association with PGD” (4). By

presenting contradictory research the author shows he accepts others conclusions and

provides them as to seem credible. The author should have included more side effects

such as cancer that would have helped to support his claims of PGD and SC being a

healthier alternative to ICSI. I will use this piece to support other articles showing that

PGD is a safer alternative to other methods such as PGD. I will also compare this article

to Gelbaya’s (2010) and Frangez’s (2014) articles and compare the effects of IVF

compared to the alternative ICSI method.

Gelbaya, Tarek A. "Short And Long-Term Risks To Women Who Conceive Through In

Vitro Fertilization." Human Fertility 13.1 (2010): 19-27. Academic Search

8

Gill

Complete. Web. 20 Oct. 2014.

Gelbaya focuses her piece on describing the negative effects invitro fertilization can have

on mothers and the embryo, short term and in the long term. Her study brings to attention

the characteristics of the mother and the sample size of the study. She concluded that

conditions such as ectopic pregnancy and pre-eclampsia were found to be much more

common in IVF that natural pregnancy (3). This conclusion shows that IVF is a

procedure that has negative complications. I will use this point in my research paper to

show the negative effects of IVF and allow the reader to understand why PGD may not

be a successful procedure that is worth the risks. The author provides reasons as to why

her results were what they were, “the increased risk of these conditions is probably

related to the woman’s subfertility status and/or increased incidence of multiple

pregnancy” (1). This claim serves in explaining the conclusions and allows the reader to

understand that IVF may not be the reason for the effects in some cases. It also relates to

another claim that states that IVF procedure should aim in preventing multiple IVF births

to reduce the chance of harm to the mother and child (4). The author provides a way to

avoid negative outcomes to show the reader that multiple births may be the cause of

harmful effects, not just IVF. Lastly, the author how cancer can be a long-term effect of

IVF. She claims that Uterine, Breast, and Ovarian cancer is an effect if IVF and also

provides a table of the risks of reproductive cancer after IVF. (5-7). I will use this in my

research paper to show that there are life threatening side effects that are not worth the

possible success of PGD. This piece is biased against IVF but also provides a way to

avoid such a negative outcome. This leads me to believe that she is against IVF but also

9

Gill

provides suggestions as to decrease the chance of harm coming to the mother and child.

Gelbaya should have discussed the political aspects of IVF and if the views are similar to

those views of preimplantation genetic diagnosis and how they are similar. She also

should have included references to relevant research articles rather than just providing her

out conclusions with little to no credibility. This made her article and conclusions biased

because she did not introduce any similar outcomes. I will use this article in my research

paper to present the negative effects associated with preimplantation genetic diagnosis

and invitro fertilization. It will be used to compare multiple sides of the positives and

negatives. The ideas and claims in this article will be used to outweigh the positives to

show the negatives are prevalent. This piece is similarly related to Frangez’s (2014)

article, they both claim that IVF has negative complications such as PD and long term

effects that may be life threatening. These two pieces will be used in my research paper

to support articles showing negative complications of PGD. This study was done to show

the side effects of IVF and to present cancer being involved with IVF.

Lotfivand, A., S. Rahmani, and A. Movassag pour. "PGD And The Effect Of Sperm

Selecting Methods In ICSI." Iranian Journal Of Reproductive Medicine 12.

(2014): 83. Academic Search Complete. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.

The purpose of this study was to understand the affects of the IVF on the expression of

the P53 gene, the apoptosis gene that activates cell death. This study is being done to

show that IVF is a safe procedure and has little side effects such as the expression of the

P53 gene. The hypothesis was that IVF would affect the P53 gene but the conclusions

were that IVF did not change the expression of the gene (1). They also concluded that

10

Gill

IVF is an effective procedure for PGD. I will use this is my research paper to show that

there are studies that have concluded that IVF is not a risky procedure and is safe for

PGD. I will contrast this article’s conclusions to those of Frangez (2014) and Gelbaya

(2010). They concluded that IVF is harmful to the fetus and mother while Lotfivand,

Rahmani, and Movassag concluded IVF to be a safe procedure. I will also use this article

to show that the contradicting articles may not be credible due to having opposite

conclusions. These authors did not compare their claims and conclusions to those of

relevant articles, which show little credibility in their findings. This article is concluded

to be bias due to the lack of credibility. This piece should have included statistics as well

as conclusions that show how to interpreted their findings. This article did not provide

data that backed up the claims made which concluded this article to not be credible when

compared to Frangez (2014) and Gelbaya (2010).

Munné, Santiago. "Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis Reduces Pregnancy Loss

In Women Aged 35 Years And Older With A History Of Recurrent

Miscarriages." Fertility & Sterility 84.2 (2005): 331-335. Academic Search

Complete. Web. 20 Oct. 2014.

Santiago’s piece focuses on recurrent miscarriage patient with a history of at least

three miscarriages. Her results showed that before preimplantation genetic diagnosis, her

sample population had lost 87% of their pregnancies but after, they only lost 16.7% of

their pregnancies (2). By providing this data, the reader concludes that PGD is beneficial

11

Gill

to the positive outcome of a pregnancy and PGD reduces the risks of a miscarriage

significantly to patients aged 35 and up. The tables provided contained data of

miscarriages before and after PGD of women greater than 35 and less than thirty-five

which served to show that her piece was not biased and that after PGD, miscarriage rates

decreased. Santiago showed an increase in her sample population, of women of another

age range that concluded similar results of women greater than 35 (3), which showed that

her data was not skewed or biased. The author shows that her data was correct by

disregarding possible factors that may account for the data such as a table provided to

show that chromosome abnormalities are not a significant factor in the differences of

miscarriage rates between the groups (3). The authors claims are also supported by

similar articles, Santiago refers to previous research such as research done by C. Rubio in

Chromosomal abnormalities and embryo development in recurrent miscarriage couples.

The results in Rubio’s article were similar to this study in that they found that for patients

aged 35 years and older, similar rates of chromosome abnormalities were found (5).

Another article by Bringham states that “women aged ≥35 years showed the most

significant reduction in spontaneous abortion, compared with a priori predictions” She

compares this experiment with one of Stephenson who found lower rates of chromosome

abnormalities compared with controls in patients aged ≤35 years but found similar rates

in patients aged >35 years” (3). By including these articles in her piece, Santiago

validated her data and claims and decreased her possible bias. These articles were also

credible because they concluded the same conclusions showing validity to their

conclusions. Santiago should have introduced an article with contradictory results and

used her data as well as a similar article to disprove their conclusions. This would have

12

Gill

helped Santiago to seem credible and show that he is being a good researcher by finding

research that is not similar to his. I will use this article to show that PGD has positive

outcomes as well and helps to ensure a decrease in miscarriages. This piece is related to

Frangez (2014) as well as Gelbaya (2010)regarding there being negative effects of PGD.

This article will be used to show that although there are negative aspects explained by

Gelbaya (2010) and Frangez (2014), positive outcomes are still prevalent such as

reducing the risk of miscarriages. I will compare it to Gelbaya’s (2010) article that

concluded PD being caused by PGD because this article concludes PGD decreasing

miscarriage rates. This study was done to show that miscarriages can also be prevented

by PGD instead of being caused by the.

Pavone, Vincenzo, and Flor Arias. "Beyond The Geneticization Thesis: The Political

Economy Of PGD/PGS In Spain." Science, Technology & Human Values 37.3

(2012): 235-261. Academic Search Complete. Web. 29 Oct. 2014.

Pavone’s article addressed the political economy regarding PGD and IVF. He discussed

the economic factors regarding the regulation of PGD and IVF along with the social order

surrounding reproductive practices. Pavone introduces a quote retrieved from a related

article, “In an IVF cycle, PGD is what costs more this is why there is a business of PGD,

which is better not to question, because this is a remarkable business and we all want to

make money” (249). By introducing this quote, Pavone is showing that the regulation of

PGD is related to the profit associated with it. He strengthens this belief throughout the

rest of the article and compares PGD regulation to stem cell regulation (251). He

13

Gill

compares how stem cell research is now easily regulated due to the influence of profit to

show that other reproductive techniques such as PGD and IVF can be regulated as well.

Pavone should have included data regarding which specific political groups are

supportive of reproductive techniques and which are against. He also should have shown

the estimated profit of stem cell research and what could be the expected profit of PGD.

This aspect would have allowed for a comparison of reproductive techniques and

supported his claims regarding the regulation of PGD compared to stem cells. He also

included a section regarding confliction of interests and claimed to have none which

shows he does not have any bias (254). He also included a section regarding the funding

of his research and showed he was funded by the Ministry of Science and Education

Bioethics group focused on evaluating the social impacts of genetic testing (255). This

group is not associated with any particular political group as to skew the opinions and

data of Pavone with signifies his claims to be true. His claims were also true because ever

claim made was validated by relevant articles concluding similar results. I will use this

article in my research paper to show the impact economic effects have on PGD and IVF.

I will also compare this article with Verlinsky’s (2005) article regarding stem cell

research and its effects on PGD.

Roberts, Celia, and Sarah Franklin. "Experiencing New Forms Of Genetic Choice:

Findings From An Ethnographic Study Of Preimplantation Genetic

Diagnosis." Human Fertility 7.4 (2004): 285-293.  Academic Search Complete.

Web. 20 Oct. 2014.

14

Gill

Robersts begins her piece by discussing how couples in Britain, that have a high

risk of passing diseases to their children, are given the choice to have the Preimplantation

Genetic Diagnosis procedure done to prevent diseases being inherited. This article hopes

to provide the reasons as to why patients choose to undergo the PGD procedure by

discussing patient decision making experiences and collecting statistics to strengthen

claims made by the author. It also explains the economical costs that are considered and

patient comments. This article as a whole focuses to provide past experiences with PGD

that may influence patients to undergo PGD. The data collected from two British clinics

reveal that “PGD patients make decisions about treatment in a complex way, taking

multiple variables into account, and maintaining ongoing assessments of the multiple

costs of engaging with PGD” (1). The collected data allows the author and reader to

understand the ethical and social perceptions of PGD that are considered by patients as

much as the scientific and medical perceptions. (3). This data can be referenced by a

mother that is unsure whether to undergo the procedure and hopes to relate to similar

patients on the topic. I will use these claims and the data related in my research paper to

show that PGD has been successful and highly acclaimed by mothers that have

undergone PGD. This will allow my paper to have hard data that serves in providing real

world claims concluded using mothers that have been successful in PGD Roberts also

discusses the economical aspects of PGD and how the outcomes are worth the costs. This

claim was reached by the data collected from PGD mothers and helps in influencing

mothers toward PGD. It allows mothers to understand that the costs may be great but the

outcome of a healthy child is well worth the cost. This piece is biased toward

preimplantation genetic diagnosis but also is very informative of the aspects of the

15

Gill

procedure that are considered most compared to the expected. The bias was clear when

Roberts explained how the cost is nothing compares to the outcomes. Roberts should

have included a wider sample populations instead of just including Britain. By

constricting the sample population, the data seems focused on a specific group of people

rather than all types of women. She also does not compare her research to similar

research. By not referencing her findings and conclusions to other research, Roberts is

showing a bias. This will be used in my research paper to show that PGD can be worth

the possible side effects. This article supports claims that PGD is not a huge risk and may

be very rewarding as found in this research article. I will also include the portion

regarding costs to show the economical viewpoint of PGD to compare the costs and

reward.

Tur, Kaspa. "PGD For All Cystic Fibrosis Carrier Couples: Novel Strategy For

Preventive Medicine And Cost Analysis." Reproductive Biomedicine Online

(Reproductive Healthcare Limited) 21.2 (2010): 186-195. Academic Search

Complete. Web. 29 Oct. 2014.

This piece highlights the cost effectiveness of PGD and IVF copared to having a

child with cystic fibrosis. The savings of undergoing PGD comparend to having a child

with CF would be 2.3 million per patient and the net savings for CF programs would

accumulate would be 33.3 billion in 37 years (3). These statistics are similar to the

findings of Davis (2010) that also show the economic efficiency of PGD compared to

cystic fibrosis. This study was done to show that PGD is a technique that can be used to

prevent cystic fibrosis and prove that although PGD is expensive, it is much cheaper in

16

Gill

the long run. Tur also claims that preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is an

alternative to raising a sick child or to aborting an affected fetus (2). This claim shows his

bias, he introduces abortion as to show that PGD is an alternative to abortion. This allows

readers who believe PGD to be unethical to understand it is a better alternative than such

harsher methods. The author also references other articles that are credible due to them

reaching the same conclusions that validate Tur’s conclusions. I will use this article in my

research in comparison to Davis (2010) to show the economic perspectives of PGD and

how PGD is not as expensive as having a child with CF.

Vendrell, Xavier. "A Methodological Overview On

Molecular Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis And Screening: A Genomic

Future?." Systems Biology In Reproductive Medicine 58.6 (2012): 289-

300. Academic Search Complete. Web. 22 Oct. 2014.

Vendrell’s piece highlights the future potential the polymerase chain reaction

(PCR) can have on preimplantation genetic diagnosis. PCR is a technique used to amplify

a single copy or a few copies of a piece of DNA that can generate thousands to millions

of copies of a desired DNA sequence (1). This piece focused on presenting molecular

techniques that are currently being used in preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Vendrell’s

piece serves to influence the reader that in the future, individuals will expects the

standardization of the analytical methods of PCR on PGD, analysis of the cost of PCR on

PGD, and a technological advance regarding this process (9). He showed that PCR can be

done to an embryo by IVF to improve the PGD technique through relating his claims to

17

Gill

research previously concluded. This piece was also missing statistics and research done

on how the PCR technique can increase the success of PGD. The statistics and tables

provided were not very clear and included confusing data such as the column labeled

“D6S273” (8). There was no data collected personally by Vendrell to signify the claims

made. This piece did a good job in comparing relevant credible research that showed his

claims to be reliable (10) which allowed the reader to believe PCR is a significant

technique being investigated for PGD. A flaw of this piece is that the amount of “DNA

from a single, or a few cells, obtained by embryo biopsy was a limiting factor for the

molecular analysis (1). Vendrell highlights that the DNA able to be amplified by the PCR

technique is limiting in the sample needed for PGD. This limiting factor affected how

much analysis was done on a specific part of DNA. I will use this piece in my research

paper to show that researchers are showing that there may be reproductive techniques that

will improve PGD. I will also use Vendrells claims and conclusions to show the future of

PGD and how his data reflects a positive outcome. This article is similar to Verlinsky’s

(2005) article in that they both provide future outcomes that may be seen. I will use both

of these articles to show how in the future, PGD will have a higher change of success and

a lower chance of side effects. I will introduce Verlinsky’s (2005) comments regarding

stem cells and provide claims of Vendrell regarding an improvement of reproductive

techniques to show that in the future PGD will improve. This study was done to show

that although PGD has many side effects now, it can be improved in the future using

PCR.

Verlinsky, Yury. "Designing Babies: What The Future Holds." Reproductive

18

Gill

Biomedicine Online (Reproductive Healthcare Limited) 10.(2005): 24-

26. Academic Search Complete. Web. 20 Oct. 2014.

Verlinsky’s piece highlights on the Advancement of reproductive technology that

focuses on preventing inherited diseases to pass on from parent to offspring. The main

points addressed by the author are ethical concerns, positive outcomes of PGD, and stem

cell research. He is researching this topic in the hopes of providing reasons as to why

PGD has not become a more common practice, how PGD can help to improve society

and patient health, and how stem cells can impact PGD in the future. Ethics are a large

reason for PGD not being a common practice, Verlinsky allows the reader to understand

this issue by ethics that are contradictory to PGD and why society may not approve of

genetically modifying a child (2-3) but also introducing a strong counter argument to

allow the reader to understand that there is a possibility of PGD becoming accepted. This

article influences the to believe that PGD may eventually lead to humans can being to

eliminate undesired embryos in the hope of improving the human gene pool. He also

provides the positive outcomes PDG has had such as that the conditions have averted in

children, risks of abortion have been reduced, and live births have risen (2). By providing

positive outcomes of PGD and statistics involved with this procedure, he is showing a

bias. I will use this portion in my research paper to strengthen research on how PGD can

positively effect patients and society. The points made by the author regarding stem cells

will also be used in my research paper to allow the reader to understand the future

implications PGD may have due to stem cells and how they will assist in creating new

therapies for diseases (4). His piece is biased toward the PGD procedure. He shows this

19

Gill

when he provides a counter argument for the ethical issues that serve to disregard the

ethics presented in this piece. By being biased he does not provide us with the possible

side effects as well as negative aspects associated with this procedure. Verlinsky should

have referenced similar articles to strengthen his claims and data. This would have

improved his bias to seem more neutral, by applying relevant research, his article would

have been supported by similar conclusions.

20