The NATIONAL MEDIA: This time it is TIME magazine
Likely Induced by Recent Class Action Lawsuits in the U.S.—as previously extensively discussed in these pages, TIME magazine on March 6, 2025, published a lengthy article on preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A). The article's title indicates that patients who utilized PGT-A in their IVF cycles are now claiming that the test caused them to discard embryos with potential for normal pregnancies and births (1).
Since the Center for Human Reproduction (CHR) has been at the forefront of criticizing the increasing utilization of PGT-A for over 20 years, it is not surprising that TIME’s health correspondent interviewed Dr. Norbert Gleicher, CHR’s Medical Director and Chief Scientist, for her piece. Dr. Gleicher was extensively quoted after the reporter noted that “the chorus of PGT-A skeptics is getting louder,” though “arguably no one is as vocal as Dr. Norbert Gleicher.”
What the reporter unfortunately did not highlight is that CHR’s opposition to chromosomal testing of embryos began around 2006, when the world was still convinced that chromosomal testing would greatly improve IVF cycle outcomes. Based on a reanalysis of several French studies, CHR’s investigators concluded that, at least for older women, PGT-A was likely reducing pregnancy and live birth chances. This was later confirmed by Dutch colleagues in a now-legendary prospective randomized study in 2007.
The reporter also failed to note that many of the proponents of PGT-A she cited have since recognized many of the test’s shortcomings, which they had previously denied. For example, they now routinely transfer so-called “mosaic” embryos, after years of automatically discarding them and accusing CHR of acting “irresponsibly” for starting to transfer chromosomally abnormal embryos selectively in 2014. CHR’s approach was proven correct in 2015, when they reported the first four healthy, chromosomally normal pregnancies resulting from such transfers.
Though the reporter deserves credit for presenting both sides of the ongoing debate surrounding PGT-A – as demonstrated by the filed class action suits – it is puzzling how she allowed a prominent PGT-A proponent to claim that “about 90% of patients opt in after receiving information about the test.”
Patients may opt in, of course, but only if the information they receive is incomplete and biased in favor of PGT-A. The CHR is well aware that informed consents given to patients are often incomplete and biased, as patients frequently communicate this fact. These patients often describe what they were told before signing up for PGT-A, only to later move their allegedly “abnormal” embryos to CHR for potential transfers or, simply, choose to undergo another fresh IVF cycle at CHR without PGT-A.
Another questionable claim made by a prominent PGT-A proponent went uncontested in the TIME article. The individual stated that PGT-A “is very powerful when done well,” but, in his view, “isn’t always done well.” Whenever someone in medicine claims outcomes that only the claimant (and similarly interested parties) can achieve, alarm bells should immediately go off, as credibility in science – including medicine – is based on reproducibility.
Otherwise, the article was well-written and presented, and certainly worth reading!
Reference
1. Ducharme J. TIME. March 6, 2025. https://time.com/7264271/ivf-pgta-test-lawsuit/