The burgeoning field of polygenic risk scores is dangerously unregulated, with some well-capitalized companies selling products that are 'no better than chance.' The key differentiator is rigorous, public validation of their predictive models, especially across ancestries, a step many firms skip.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The predictive power of embryo screening can be validated without controversial longitudinal studies on children. By testing if models can accurately predict trait differences between adult siblings using only their DNA, companies can prove efficacy for embryos, who are essentially unrealized siblings.
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.
The complaint 'I would have been selected against' is logically incoherent. Any change in conception—including embryo selection—creates a different person. One cannot be 'harmed' by a choice that results in their non-existence; they are simply replaced by another potential person. The complaining 'you' would never have existed.
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.
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.
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.
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.