Last spring there was a false alarm about a noninvasive form of prenatal testing, in particular for Down syndrome. But if The Guardian is right then the British NHS is pushing forward on a more general program in this direction:
The early signs are so promising that the professor leading the programme says that the risk-free test could be the standard method of detecting babies with some genetic conditions inherited from the father within two to three years and those with Down's syndrome within five - and in the process save the lives of an estimated 265 mostly normal babies a year.
The life-saving part is that there would be far less need for amniocentesis, which is invasive and results in a risk of miscarriage. The cost vs. benefit of prenatal screening would presumably shift. Though British newspapers are inclined toward sensationalism and inaccuracy, this is probably grounded in something real.
The Guardian seems to have adopted the pro-lifer terminology, "unborn babies" instead of "fetuses."
The Guardian seems to have adopted the pro-lifer terminology, "unborn babies" instead of "fetuses."
why do you think that american terminologies would have any valence for british people?
There was a recent example (a few years ago) of an attack on academic freedom when a professor raised the issue of aborting Down's syndrome fetuses:
http://www.wnct.com/nct/news/state_regional/article/-NCT_2008_02_16_000…
Salient (unbelievable quote) by a student:
"But senior Lara Frame of Charlotte said the classroom was no place for Harris to express his opinion."
Razib is right: for British people the two terms are interchangeable. Fetuses sounds more scientific, though, so I think it tends to get used less just because it sounds a bit awkward.
ah, I see they're using extracellular DNA(?). New development since I last looked at the field. Seems more efficient than the way they used to try to do it, straining the bloodstream for the tiny numbers of fetal cells.