Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Disparities among infertility patients regarding genetic carrier screening, sex selection, and gene editing

  • Assisted Reproduction Technologies
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the perspectives of infertility patients regarding genetic carrier screening, embryo sex selection, embryo research, and gene editing.

Methods

An anonymous 32-question survey was distributed electronically to all patients who seen at a single academic fertility center for at least one visit between June 2018 and September 2019. Survey questions evaluated patient perspectives on genetic carrier screening, embryo sex selection, embryo research, and gene editing.

Results

There were 1460 survey responses (32.0% response rate). There were significant differences in the proportion of respondents receiving genetic carrier screening between racial groups, 73.1% of White, 45.5% of Black, 49.4% of Hispanic, and 62.8% of Asian respondents. The likelihood of having genetic carrier screening was also significantly influenced by respondent income, insurance status, and religion. Religion significantly influenced the acceptance of embryonic research and embryonic sex selection. While only 8.9% felt that genetically modifying embryos for physical traits should be allowed, 74.1% felt that genetic modification to correct disease should be allowed.

Conclusion

Racial, religious, and socioeconomic factors significantly impacted respondents’ likelihood to have genetic carrier screening and views on embryo sex selection, embryo research, and gene editing. These findings highlight the importance of tailoring genetic counseling to the individual, acknowledging individual and cultural differences in agreement with genetic testing and emerging genetic therapies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jinek M, Chylinski K, Fonfara I, Hauer M, Doudna J. A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science. 2012;337(6096):816–21.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Heritable human genome editing: consensus study report. National Academy of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, The Royal Society. The National Academies Press: Washington DC; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Weisberg SM, Badgio D, Chatterjee A. A CRISPR new world: attitudes in the public toward innovations in human genetic modification. Front Public Health. 2017;5:117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Schneider JL, Goddard KAB, Davis J, Wilfond B, Kauffman TL, Reiss JA, et al. “Is it worth knowing?” Focus group participants’ perceived utility of genomic preconception carrier screening. J Genet Couns. 2016;25(1):135–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Nazareth SB, Lazarin GA, Goldberg JD. Changing trends in carrier screening for genetic disease in the United States. Prenat Diagn. 2015;35(10):931–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Persaud A, Desine S, Blizinsky K, Bonham VL. A CRISPR focus on attitudes and beliefs toward somatic genome editing from stakeholders within the sickle cell disease community. Genet Med. 2019;21(8):1726–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Missmer SA, Seifer DB, Jain T. Cultural factors contributing to health care disparities among patients with infertility in Midwestern United States. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:1943–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Jain T, Missmer SA, Gupta RS, Hornstein MD. Preimplantation sex selection demand and preferences in an infertility population. Fertil Steril. 2005;83(3):649–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hoffman J, Park J, Schreiber-Agus N, Kornreich R, Tanner A, Keiles S, et al. The Ashkenazi Jewish carrier screening panel: evolution, status quo and disparities. Prenat Diagn. 2014;34(12):1161–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gregg A, Edwards J. Prenatal genetic carrier screening in the genomic age. Semin Perinatol. 2018;42(5):303–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dahl E, Gupta RS, Beutel M, Stoebel-Richter Y, Brosig B, Tinneberg HR, et al. Preconception sex selection demand and preferences in the United States. Fertil Steril. 2006;85(2):468–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Missmer SA, Jain T. Preimplantation sex selection demand and preferences among infertility patients in Midwestern United States. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2007;24(10):451–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Capelouto S, Archer S, Morris J, Kawwass J, Hipp H. Sex selection for non-medical indications: a survey of current pre-implantation genetic screening practices among U.S. ART clinics. J Assist Rprod Genet. 2018;35(3):409–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. American Society for Reproductive Medicine Ethics Committee. Use of reproductive technology for sex selection for nonmedical reasons. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(6):1418–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Availability of data and material

Available upon request.

Code availability

N/A.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA

    Dana B. McQueen

  2. Institute for Public Health and Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA

    Christopher M. Warren & Tarun Jain

  3. Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 676 N Saint Clair, Suite, Chicago, IL, 2310, USA

    Alexander H. Xiao

  4. Division of Clinical Genetics, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA

    Lee P. Shulman

Authors
  1. Dana B. McQueen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christopher M. Warren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alexander H. Xiao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lee P. Shulman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tarun Jain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tarun Jain.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

IRB approval was obtained.

Consent to participate

Subjects gave written consent.

Consent for publication

Subjects gave written consent.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

ESM 1

(DOCX 22 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McQueen, D.B., Warren, C.M., Xiao, A.H. et al. Disparities among infertility patients regarding genetic carrier screening, sex selection, and gene editing. J Assist Reprod Genet 38, 2319–2325 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-021-02261-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-021-02261-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation