EDITOR, - In these heady days of cost effective health care, priority setting, and market forces, I felt as though I was back in the 1970s while reading Angus Nicoll and Clare Moisley's editorial on antenatal screening for syphilis.1 They describe a routine test that is extensively carried out to prevent a condition whose true incidence is unknown. It is all very well applauding new surveillance initiatives, but isn't it surprising that these were not started some years go? There is no mention at all of the costs of the tests in Britain, let alone whether the tests are cost effective. Screening for some conditions - for …