The debate over selecting traits like height or IQ misses the point. These are not the ultimate goals for parents but are proxies for what they truly desire: a happy, healthy, and fulfilling life for their child. This reframes the ethical discussion from trait selection to enabling well-being.
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.
Parents obsess over choices affecting long-term success, but research suggests these have minimal effect on outcomes like personality. Instead, parenting profoundly shapes a child's day-to-day happiness and feelings of security, which are valuable in themselves and should be the primary focus.
Aligning AI with a specific ethical framework is fraught with disagreement. A better target is "human flourishing," as there is broader consensus on its fundamental components like health, family, and education, providing a more robust and universal goal for AGI.
An internal Nucleus Genomics experiment revealed that when 16 employees chose from 8 embryos, there were 14 unique selections. This demonstrates that 'optimization' is based on highly personal values, countering the fear that genetic selection will lead to a human monoculture.
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.
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.
Fears that embryo selection will create a uniform human population are misplaced. The process is a *relative* optimization, limited to the genetic diversity provided by the two parents. The choice of partner has a far more significant impact on the gene pool than selecting among resulting embryos.
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.
Fears about unintended trade-offs from embryo selection are largely unfounded due to 'positive pleiotropy.' The genes for many diseases are positively correlated. This means selecting against a disease like severe depression often provides a 'free' reduction in the risk of other conditions like bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.