Article Text

Download PDFPDF
A brief and personal history of ‘what’s in a name’ in reproductive genetics
  1. Jeff Nisker
  1. Obstetrics & Gynecology, Western University, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, London, ON, Canada, N6A 5C1
  1. Correspondence to Dr Jeff Nisker, Obstetrics & Gynecology, Western University Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, London, ON N6A 5C1, Canada; jeff.nisker{at}lhsc.on.ca

Abstract

Although Juliet’s claim, ‘What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet’, may apply to family names, ‘that which we call’ embryos and procedures in reproductive genetics often smell sweet because the names were created to perfume not-so-sweet-smelling practices. Reproductive-genetic scientists and clinicians, including myself, have used perfumed names to make our research smell sweet for research ethics boards, research grant funders, government regulators, hospital administrators and the general public. The sweet-smelling names in reproductive genetics explored here include ‘pre-embryo’, preimplantation genetic ‘diagnosis’, ‘normal’ embryo, ‘suitable’ embryo, ‘healthy’ embryo, preimplantation genetic ‘testing’, ‘non-invasive prenatal testing’, ‘donation’, and most recently ‘mitochondrial replacement therapy’, a sweet-smelling name for germline nuclear transfer prohibited in antireproductive cloning legislation in most countries. In order for informed choices to occur for women who come to clinicians for information regarding reproductive genetics, and for transparency of scrutiny by research ethics boards, governmental regulators and the general public, it is essential that we consider the real meaning of sweet-smelling names in reproductive genetics.

  • genetics
  • reproductive medicine
  • narrative ethics
View Full Text

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Contributors JN is the sole contributor to this manuscript.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data availability statement Data sharing not applicable as no data sets generated and/or analysed for this study.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.