Recently, the British company DNA Worldwide launched a new product, available over the Internet, that can determine the sex of a fetus after as few as six weeks of a pregnancy. The test, called "Pink or Blue," can detect the presence of Y-chromosomes in the fetal DNA in a sample of the mother's blood, and it offers a post-birth refund for any false results. While obviously a step forward in genetic research, the implications of the test, especially in the context of abortion, are increasingly problematic.
I have several qualms about this product. First, British health authorities do not endorse the test. When a fetus is only six weeks old, there is very little fetal DNA found in a mother's bloodstream; this compromises the test's accuracy. I find it troubling that there is any possibility of error in a test that attempts to replace the reliable 20-week ultrasound most commonly used today.
David Nicholson, the director of DNA Worldwide, assured the Associated Press that hundreds of tests have been sold since April, and the company has only refunded one customer for an inaccurate test result. Maybe I'm not very good at math, but it seems to me that most women who were six weeks pregnant in April have not given birth yet, which conveniently skews Nicholson's accuracy report.
Interestingly, DNA Worldwide does not claim to offer a medical test; the company states on its website that its goal is "bridging the gap between science and the home."
While I am certainly not going to argue that attempts to incorporate scientific advancements into the lives of the public are always a bad thing, it does bother me that DNA Worldwide's website advertises the Pink and Blue test in infomercial style. The phrases "money back guarantee" and "greater than 99% accuracy" in bold font, followed by "fast worldwide shipping," could have something to do with it.
It reminds me of those theme park booths, the ones that bet they can guess your age within a three-year range (I'm 19; guessing my age within three years is a piece of cake), because the company has a 50-50 shot at getting the sex right anyway.
All mistrust of gimmicky advertising aside, the increasing commercialization of birth processes is very real. A May 15 AP story quotes Marcy Darnovsky, associate executive director of the pro-choice group Center for Genetics and Society, who points out that "sex-selection might encourage parents to view their kids as commodities." While I think referring to children as "commodities" is an exaggeration, the idea is troubling on a moral level.
It is true that the Pink and Blue test is a likely precursor to tests that will be able to identify chromosomal disorders such as Down syndrome early in a pregnancy. While this will be a significant scientific advancement, this possibility has implications for abortion policy. I agree with the 70 percent of the American population that believes that women should have the right to a legal abortion if their baby is likely to have a severe defect, despite moral objections to abortion.
That being said, the pope and other pro-life parties refer to the abortion of deformed fetuses as eugenics because it allows people to select against children who will grow up mentally or otherwise disabled.
I find this point of view too extreme because I'm confident the world will not permit a eugenicist crusade against disabled children. But I do find the concept particularly troubling as it relates to the Pink and Blue test. If a woman can find out the sex of her baby after only six weeks, she has plenty of time to decide whether or not to terminate the pregnancy based on the sex of her child, an idea that I, admittedly along with most people, find morally repugnant.
Along with the right to reap the benefits of advances in science comes social responsibility. It is telling that DNA Worldwide does not sell its Pink and Blue test to customers in China or India, where male children are traditionally preferred over females. If the company making a profit off the test is worried about the frightening possibility of sex-selective abortion, we definitely should be.
