Government subsidies for genetic screening could solve the problem of genetic inequality. However, this policy forces citizens who morally or religiously object to the technology to fund it through their taxes, creating a fundamental conflict between promoting equality and respecting individual liberty and conscience.

Related Insights

Many object to embryo selection because they mistakenly believe it involves altering genes. In reality, the technology simply reveals information about natural genetic variations already present in IVF embryos, allowing parents to choose, not tinker.

Up to 40% of natural conceptions are spontaneously aborted, often before a woman knows she's pregnant. This is typically the body's way of rejecting embryos with severe genetic abnormalities. This natural process provides a powerful biological precedent for the practice of pre-implantation genetic screening.

As technology moves from healing to enhancement (e.g., 100x vision), it could create a permanent societal divide. If these augmentations are expensive, it may lead to a caste system where an enhanced elite possesses superior physical and cognitive abilities not available to the general population.

In the U.S., support for embryo screening for disease is nearly double that for intelligence, while in Singapore, support is equal. This gap is attributed to Western taboos from WWII-era eugenics, creating a moral distinction between selecting against negative traits and for positive ones that is less pronounced elsewhere.

Ideologies that rely on a 'blank slate' view of human nature have made a catastrophic error. As genetic technologies become mainstream, the public is forced to confront the tangible reality of genetic predispositions in their own reproductive choices. This will unravel the blank slate worldview, a cornerstone of some progressive thought.

Fears of a return to 1940s-style eugenics are misplaced when focusing on individual reproductive choices. The critical distinction is between government-forced programs and individuals making informed decisions. Preserving individual autonomy is the key safeguard against the historical horrors of coercive eugenics.

A new innovation allows companies to construct an embryo's entire genome using raw data from a standard Down syndrome test. This means parents can get comprehensive polygenic reports without needing explicit approval from clinics or doctors, effectively democratizing access and removing traditional medical gatekeepers.

Standard IVF practice involves a doctor visually selecting the embryo that appears most "normally shaped." This is already a form of selection. Polygenic screening simply replaces this subjective "eyeballing" method with quantitative genetic data for a more informed choice, making it an evolution, not a revolution.

Polygenic embryo screening, while controversial, presents a clear economic value proposition. A $3,500 test from Genomic Prediction that lowers Type 2 Diabetes risk by 12% implies that avoiding the disease is worth over $27,000. This reframes the service from 'designer babies' to a rational financial decision for parents.

The ability to select embryos fundamentally changes parenthood from an act of acceptance to one of curation. It introduces the risk of "buyer's remorse," where a parent might resent a child for not living up to their pre-selected potential. This undermines the unconditional love that stems from accepting the child you're given by fate.

Subsidizing Genetic Screening Pits Equality Against Forcing Dissenters to Pay | RiffOn