Comments on: Safe Prenatal Genetic Test?

By: New Clues For Down Syndrome? « ScienceRoll

New Clues For Down Syndrome? « ScienceRoll — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 17:26:46 +0000

[...] Safe Prenatal Genetic Test? [...]

By: Genetics and Health » We Love Genetics… We Love Genetics Not

Genetics and Health » We Love Genetics… We Love Genetics Not — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 13:36:14 +0000

[...] Bertalan Meskó at ScienceRoll backs up Kristina and Rebecca with some technical details on how prenatal diagnosis is performed. Watch out for a surprise photo at the end of the [...]

By: ncurse

ncurse — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 11:30:25 +0000

MyBlogLog is a community for bloggers. You can join other bloggers’ communities, you can watch who links to you… And with that widget, you can log your readers by name and picture (those who are registered in MyBlogLog).

By: Darmok

Darmok — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 07:21:33 +0000

Can you explain to me what this MyBlogLog thing is?

By: Darmok

Darmok — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 07:19:12 +0000

Well—you seem to be doing just fine!

By: ncurse

ncurse — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 09:28:58 +0000

I hope that it’s correct now. Anyway, don’t care about your style, just bomb me with these suggestions, they always help me to improve.

By: Darmok

Darmok — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 09:12:13 +0000

I’m sorry that I wasn’t clear. If you read the BBC article, you will see that those statements are quotations from Alexandra Benachi and Jean-Marc Costa; it is your failing to mention them as the ones who originally made the statements that I object to. The BBC quoted those statements from their longer editorial.

I apologize if my manner is overly brusque. But please be assured that it is only because I read your blog so carefully that I could even notice this sort of discrepancy.

By: ncurse

ncurse — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 09:01:10 +0000

OK then, maybe I’m too sensitive these days. The group of methods and the obvious aims are mine. In the next short paragraph I link to te exact source. Then I talk about the Ravgen team (with information from their homepage), and the last two lists are made by the already sourced BBC article.

Thank you for your critics! Sometimes I argue with them, but they’re important to improve my blogging skills. So keep it up!

By: Darmok

Darmok — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 08:52:24 +0000

It is not sufficient to simply place copied text in quotation marks; the one who is the source of the quotation must be specified.

I don’t know you well enough to like you or dislike you. But I find your blog fascinating, which is why I read it critically.

By: ncurse

ncurse — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 08:15:32 +0000

If you mean the list of concerns, now it’s a quotation. But the others are not. Anyway somewhy you don’t like me. Are you satisfied with the post now?

By: Darmok

Darmok — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 08:02:54 +0000

The sentences you used were quoted directly in the BBC article. It would be highly improbably that you invented them independently. Yes, you used lines from the editorial by Alexandra Benachi and Jean-Marc Costa.

By: ncurse

ncurse — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 07:40:51 +0000

It’s not easy to plagiarise if you don’t even read that article. I used only the BBC page. BTW, you mean I plagiarised the list of the other side’s concerns?

By: Darmok

Darmok — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 07:27:04 +0000

And if you want to avoid plagiarism, you should use quotation marks and attribute the quotations the Lancet editorialists rather than presenting it as your own writing.

By: ncurse

ncurse — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 19:49:21 +0000

You’re right. The chance of miscarriage is 0,25-0,5% in amniocentesis, 0.5 to 1 %in CVS. But you should note that aminocentesis is only done in women with higher risks. And yes, an early, non-invasive test would be much needed.

I’ll follow the improvements of this test and will let you know if something important happens…

By: sciencesque

sciencesque — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 19:00:18 +0000

Great post!. My wife and I were just talking about this last night. In Alberta, Canada, they are talking about increasing the number of women who get their babies screen for genetic abnormalities. As it stands now, only women over 35 have access to amnios due to the increased risk of Downs syndrome, etc. Unfortunately, amnios come with some risk (1-2% chance of miscarriage, I believe). If more women start getting amnios even though they are not in a high risk group for genetic abnormalities, then I imagine the number of miscarriages will also needlessly increase. If this non-invasive testing works, that would be great. But unfortunately, more benefits of genetic testing would be realized if the tests were done earlier rather than later in the pregnancy. Perhaps the technique will improve.