THE decision to allow embryos to be screened for inherited bowel cancer will open the way for the controversial procedure to be used to prevent many more late-onset diseases, experts said yesterday.

Paul Serhal, of University College Hospital in London, who was awarded the new licence, is seeking permission to test embryos for two other forms of cancer, and other clinics intend to follow suit.

Mr Serhal has approached the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority about offering pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) to patients who carry the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which raise a woman’s risk of breast cancer to 80 per cent, although he has yet to submit a formal application. He also wants to screen for retinoblastoma, an inherited cancer of the eyes.

At least one other British fertility doctor — Mohammed Taranissi, of the Assisted Reproduction and Gynaecology Centre in London — has plans to offer a similar breast cancer test.

Tests for genes that raise the risk of other late-onset diseases, including Alzheimer’s and prostate cancer, are also offered in the United States.

“This is the first step, but this is history in the making,” Mr Serhal said. “If the technology is available to get rid of mutated genes that will lead to cancer, it’s going to be only a matter of time before tests are offered to patients to eliminate them.

“I don’t see any problem at all with this. Second on the list is retinoblastoma, and BRCA 1 and 2 will certainly be screened for as well. How can you not avail yourself of a technology that has such potential?”

The HFEA said that it had approved the familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) test because of the devastating effect that the disease has on those who inherit the defective gene. “FAP is a serious condition,” a spokesman said. “Pre-natal diagnosis and selective termination of affected cases has been offered in the past. Families with the genetic condition have a 50 per cent chance of passing it on to their children, but PGD can help these families have a healthy child.”

Clinics wishing to use PGD must apply for a separate licence for every disease that they screen.

“The HFEA issues licences for PGD where the embryo is at significant risk of developing a serious condition,” the spokesman said. “All PGD applications are sent out to a minimum of two peer reviewers and decisions are taken by HFEA licence committees, who consider all the scientific, ethical and medical information.”

Alistair Kent, director of the Genetic Interest Group, which represents patients with genetic diseases, said that screening for other cancers was likely to follow. “I find the arguments for FAP and the breast cancer genes very similar,” he said. “Both are not immediately obvious at birth. Though FAP usually presents earlier than breast cancer, both carry a very high risk of cancer, which requires a big, invasive operation to reduce and cannot be eliminated completely.

“We would see this as containing a precedent. PGD is a human and sensible use of technology for people who find themselves carrying unpleasant genetic diseases.”

The ruling was attacked by pro-life groups. Josephine Quintevalle, of Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said: “Our principal concern is that the HFEA has made another controversial decision without any public consultation, which is a tendency it seems to be revelling in at the moment.

“This is not more of the same: this is a condition that does not arise for 20 years, and the way medicine is moving a cure may be available by then. We are not thinking about curing the disease, but about eliminating the carrier. It is pretty shoddy medicine.”

PGD, which has led to the birth of about a thousand babies worldwide, involves creating embryos by IVF and growing them to the eight-cell stage in the laboratory. One cell is then removed and tested for genes that cause particular diseases and only embyros without the defects are transferred to the womb.

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• Phoebe Caldwell wins Times/Sternberg Award
• Raging against fake pop has its own pitfalls
• How a voice for everyone led to stalemate