I REFER to the article by Elisabeth Tacey (South China Morning Post, November 8), which brings into question my competence in the field of assisted reproductive technology (ART). I started my training in 'medical laboratory sciences' in 1974 and won a government scholarship to do a degree in genetics and biochemistry at the University of Leeds in Britain. Subsequently, I was trained at Guy's Hospital in London as a cytogeneticist for 18 months. During this period, by examination, I became a fellow of the Institute of Biomedical Sciences, specialising in histopathology and cytology. Later, I returned to Hong Kong and took up a post as a scientific officer at the Tsan Yuk Hospital and obtained my master's degree in clinical biochemistry at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. My scientific background enabled me to set up the first private laboratory for prenatal diagnosis in Hong Kong in 1991. The Assisted Reproductive Technology Centre (ARTC), which we are planning, would provide facilities and services for ART and would assist those doctors who would like to pursue these procedures. All clinical assessments, prescription of drugs, retrieval of eggs, embryo transfers and all subsequent procedures would be carefully planned and carried out by registered obstetricians. In my case, I would work as a scientist responsible for laboratory investigations, preparation of semen samples, and culture of eggs and embryos. All these procedures would be performed under clinical supervision. In the article, the reference to 'two weeks of training in fertility' is totally unjustified. In fact, this was simply an opportunity to become acquainted with up-to-date information in this particular area. The article also questions whether gender pre-selection and in vitro fertilisation (IVF) - a discipline of ART - should be performed in the same place, but no reason whatsoever is given to justify such questioning. If there is a rational reason, we would appreciate hearing it. Regarding the technology being used at the Gender Choice Centre, it has been published in scientific reference journals. As quoted in your paper, Dr Ian Johnston, a member of the Australian Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee said that sex selection clinics using GCC had never been banned by law. GCC and ARTC will be operated separately. According to the ethics of practice of GCC, sex pre-selection is only offered to married couples with at least one child and the choice of sex must be opposite to that of the majority sex of the children. In fact, we have rejected couples who had no children and who could not undertake not to abort if the sex being carried was not as requested. In ARTC, all ART procedures will be operated to equally rigid guidelines in conformity with requirements of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority in Britain. I welcome the early establishment of a statutory body to ensure that medical and scientific advances are used properly to serve the interests of those who seek to fulfil their desire for a family. This would protect the standard of ART through a code of practice, licensing, inspection of centres and recommendations for legislation. Meanwhile, I would be interested in any constructive dialogue on the subject. ANTHONY WONG Central
