And although the UK does examine each mutation to be included in PGD, i think they’ve approved a surprising number of them. The practice here is also to solicit public feedback on these decisions so if public opinion supports PGD, the UK regulatory bodies will most likely go along with it. (Based on my casual observation.)

I’d be interested in learning more about the regulatory debate/climate for PGD. My understanding is that the ASRM has offered guidelines for its use in the US, including BRCA screening, but I’d be curious to hear your ideas on the merits of say, the UK (highly regulated) and the US (almost anything goes!) approaches. Ive been wondering lately if it is possible to regulate PGD without infringing on the reproductive rights that have been won under the “right to privacy”?

She says the statement (by a Ravgen employee) about the value of the tests offered by Ravgen seemed overstated, so she either stated that, or posed a question to that effect to Dr. Dhallan.

I would think that expressing skepticism about a value statement attributed by an employee of a company about their personal reaction to using a for-profit product of that company is a reasonable response for a reporter, or a blogger.

If anything, the fact Hsien reveals the nature of the conversation she had with the Dr. shows a greater deal of transparency than many professional journalists.

A journalist who took the woman’s quote at face value and failed to point out the fact the woman in question was a company employee might have appeared to be more professional in their writing, but looks can be deceiving.

(I’m a blogger for b5media, and like Hsien, but my comment would be pretty similar if I came across this situation on any old blog.)

I completely respect the professionalism of most journalists I’ve had dealings with. I also respect the quality of research and writing of many bloggers. The fact that blogging tends to involve a slightly more casual writing style doesn’t mean the information is automatically tainted.

If your style of reporting is accurately reflected in this article, then perhaps others are justified in considering your “genetic blogging illegitimate.” Your characterization of another woman’s experience when faced with the prenatal testing, is not only uninformative, it is most likely unfair.

“…Ravgen staff Sarah Emche talked about the “incredible peace of mind” the test gave her family during each of her two pregnancies. That struck me as an overstatement considering all of the various congenital defects that are possible and for which no prenatal tests exist.”

Could you be oversimplifying what she said? Your opinion of what others might or might not be thinking, is irrelevant. A legitimate journalist would interview the person and get their side of the story.

I found your previous entry about this research very informative. However, if you present “news” with such an obvious agenda, you may find that you are ignored. It appears the EurekAlert! staff just doesn’t take you seriously.