New tech allows parents to ‘score’ IVF embryos for desirable traits — and it’s in desperate need of regulation
“If I give you a diagnostic tool that lets you end up with a kid who is three times more likely to be admitted to MIT, I think people are going to be interested.”
Even though it sounds like a line from a science fiction movie, it’s actually a quote Since Steve Hsuprofessor of physics at Michigan State University and co-founder of Genomic predictiona company that offers parents a new technology called polygenic embryo selection.
In the 1997 film “Gattaca,” the type of thinking reflected in Hsu’s speech led to a dystopia in which children were conceived in laboratories and society was divided between the genetic haves and have-nots. When the film was first released, the reproductive technologies it depicted were science fiction – but today they are quickly becoming scientific realities.
Companies like Genomic Prediction, Orchid, HerasightAnd Core now offer polygenic embryo selection, a technology that sorts embryos based on their genetics and predicts the possible characteristics of future babies. This is not the same as older technology that tests embryos for chromosomal abnormalities and specific single-gene genetic diseases, such as sickle cell disease and cystic fibrosis. In comparison, polygenic embryo selection aims to give prospective parents insight into a much wider range of characteristics, from intelligence to heart disease to depression.
Hsu thinks it’s just a good deal, and he’s right –– in survey studiesmany expectant parents have expressed interest in using technology. The question is whether we should let him sell it.
These tests rely on polygenic scores, summarized from thousands of tiny genetic influences, to try to predict the likelihood of a given trait manifesting itself. Polygenic scores are valuable tools for researchers seeking to better understand the influence of genetics on various diseases. But the predictive accuracy of existing polygenic scores varies widely from trait to trait, and they are generally not reliable guides for predicting a person’s future — let alone that of an embryo.
Researchers have discovered that many of the purportedly genetic effects summarized in existing polygenic scores are not biological at all. Rather, they reflect the fact that genetically similar people tend to also live in similar regions and share social and economic circumstances. Polygenic scores also do not work well for people who are not represented in the training data, namely people who are not of European ancestry.
But that doesn’t stop companies from market their service as a responsible way to have babies.
Potential consequences of polygenic embryo selection
Despite their well-known scientific limitations, using polygenic scores to select embryos could fuel the belief that children conceived this way are inherently “better” than those conceived without them — much like what we saw in “Gattaca.”
Parents may have higher expectations of embryo-selected polygenic children. Polygenic individuals selected by embryos could seek out potential mates who have also been selected. Meanwhile, those born without selection might face lower expectations, discrimination and the stigma of being seen as genetically inferior.
The way we perceive ourselves, even if it is unfounded, has a profound influence on our social interactions. There is, for example, a long and worrying history of using genetic science to legitimize harmful and inaccurate views of race And incite racial violence.
Ultimately, polygenic embryo selection will likely become more accurate at predicting traits as genomic databases used in medical research become larger and more diverse – although their accuracy will depend on the trait. This makes the current lack of regulation around this technology all the more troubling.
There is no agreed standard for the threshold at which the underlying science will be sufficiently precise to justify its use in embryo selection. There is no obligation for companies to be transparent about the specific scientific studies their services are based on. Misleading advertising has little impact in practice. There’s a reason the major embryo selection companies are based in the United States: we don’t have rules.
Meanwhile, other developed countries have taken a much more cautious regulatory approach. Countries like the UK, Germany and France have outright banned the selection of polygenic embryos – although flaws still exist. These nations recognized early on that leaving such important technology to market forces risked creating exactly the dystopia that “Gattaca” warned us about.
Intended parents suffering from illnesses such as Crohn’s disease or schizophrenia may consider embryo selection as a way to reduce their child’s chances of suffering a similar fate. It is difficult to justify avoiding embryo selection in these cases. But without a robust regulatory apparatus, screening for such pathologies could inadvertently open the door to screening for far more troubling characteristics: intelligence, athleticism, or even skin tone.
At least two companies – Nucleus and Herasight – already offer intelligence tests on embryos.
Notably, as things currently stand, the technology is unaffordable for most Americans. Selection of polygenic embryos requires IVF. A single cycle of IVF costs tens of thousands of dollars and is not covered by Medicaid. Genetically testing each embryo before implantation adds thousands more to the overall price.
Given that the rich can access the technology, as the efficiency of polygenic embryo selection improves, existing social inequalities between rich and poor Americans could transform into biological inequalities.
Wealthy Americans are already toying with the idea of using embryo selection to “optimize” their best baby. Millions of dollars have been pumped into the industry by tech elites like Alexis Ohanianco-founder of Reddit and husband of tennis superstar Serena Williams; And Brian Armstrongco-founder of Coinbase. Notable clientele of polygenic embryo breeding include Sam Altman of OpenAI and Elon Musk of Tesla.
Without regulation, key ethical and social questions raised by the selection of polygenic embryos will remain unanswered: what types of traits should parents be allowed to select for? Could unreasonable expectations be placed on children conceived through technology? Are we quietly creating a genetic arms race that encodes existing social and economic inequalities into our very DNA?
Allowing companies to offer embryo selection will tilt social competition even further in favor of those who are already ahead. Regulation will not stop scientific progress; in fact, it is essential to ensure that progress benefits society rather than divides it.
Notice on Live Science gives you insight into the most important science questions affecting you and the world around you today, written by experts and leading scientists in their fields.
