The new world of genetic technology will affect young people more than the older generation. But what do they think about the application of these technologies to reproductive decision-making? Dr Rachel Iredale and colleagues at the University of Glamorgan's Genomics Policy Unit ran a 'citizens' jury' for young people between 16 and 19 years old to find out where they would draw the line with 'designer babies'.

no text

Fourteen young people from Wales were chosen as jurors; they cross-examined experts on topics such as preventing genetic disease, sex selection and 'saviour siblings'. They also heard from non-experts who had personal experience of the issues before reaching their verdict.

The organisers concluded that the first citizens' jury with this age group demonstrated the validity of the method in terms of engaging young people with current issues in science, and that they have important and useful things to say about genetic technologies.

As well as writing their report, the young jurors presented their conclusions to the Human Genetics Commission, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, and the Health and Social Services Committee of the Welsh Assembly Government. They included agreement that it is acceptable to use genetic technology to prevent genetic disorders being passed on, or to save a sibling. But the jury opposed sex selection for social reasons.

They also declared that 'designer babies' is not a useful term – and that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority should have some members under 20.

Image: The group that sat on the citizens' jury; University of Glamorgan/Wales Gene Park/Techniquest

External links

• Iredale R et al. What choices should we be able to make about designer babies? A Citizens' Jury of young people in South Wales. Health Expect 2006;9(3):207–17.