Abstract
Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is a technique that involves genetic testing of embryos conceived in vitro, allowing selection of embryos for transfer based on this testing. The ability to select embryos based on genetic information presents a variety of moral, legal, and social dilemmas. There are no laws in the United States regulating indications for the use of PGD, and there is a lack of professional consensus regarding potentially controversial applications, such as sex selection or avoidance of adult-onset conditions. In this study, the researchers used an anonymous online survey to gather opinions from university students across the United States about various applications of PGD. Participants used a 7-point Likert scale to rank their opinions about the moral acceptability, legal status, insurance coverage, and personal use of PGD for eleven specific scenarios. Comparison of mean scores of 187 participants revealed that, generally, respondents believed the use of PGD is morally acceptable for medical indications (mean score 5.7), but unacceptable for nonmedical sex selection (3.03, 3.43) or positive selection for deafness (2.84). Mean acceptability scores were highest for scenarios involving a high risk of a severe, untreatable condition. Respondents who believed that life begins at fertilization were less likely to indicate that PGD is morally acceptable than those who believed life begins after implantation (4.62 vs. 5.85), and respondents who identified with a religion indicated less moral support of PGD than those without a religion (5.56 vs. 6.02). Respondents’ moral attitudes were not significantly different from their opinions about the legal status (5.9) and personal use (5.7) of PGD for medical indications, but support for insurance coverage of the procedure was less strong (4.6). Results from this study are a valuable addition to the ongoing debate regarding appropriate uses of PGD technology.