By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Couples in the UK are utilizing a legal loophole to send their embryos’ genetic data abroad for controversial screening, allowing them to rank embryos based on predicted traits like IQ and height. This practice circumvents UK regulations that restrict embryo testing to serious health conditions and prohibit clinics from selecting embryos based on these polygenic scores. One US company, Herasight, offers this service, claiming to predict traits and work with UK-based couples, despite ethical concerns and objections from medical professionals who deem the technique unproven. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has stated this testing is unlawful for use in the UK, but cannot stop couples from seeking it overseas.
Read the original article here
UK IVF couples use legal loopholes to rank embryos based on potential IQ, height, and health. It seems we’re entering a realm that feels ripped from the pages of dystopian science fiction, where the desire for the “perfect” child is fueling a controversial new frontier in assisted reproduction. Companies are emerging that offer to assess embryos, providing couples with information on potential IQ, height, and the risk of various diseases like heart disease, cancer, and even schizophrenia.
This practice, facilitated by a perceived legal loophole, is raising a lot of eyebrows, and for good reason. The most immediate concern revolves around the claim to predict and influence a child’s IQ. While there’s no denying the hereditary component of intelligence, the complexities of genetics and environmental factors make predicting a six-point increase in IQ seem highly dubious, and bordering on impossible, with current scientific understanding. It’s easy to see how this could be a major source of stress and disappointment, potentially leading to a child feeling like they’ve failed to meet their parents’ predetermined expectations.
The ethical implications extend beyond just the IQ claims. The ability to screen for potential health issues is a welcome advancement, and is in line with pre-existing practices, such as testing for Down Syndrome. However, the use of this information to rank embryos, essentially choosing one based on a predetermined set of traits, opens a door to what many would consider eugenics. While screening for diseases could lead to healthier children, the selection for height, and especially IQ, raises complex questions about societal values and the potential for reinforcing existing biases and inequalities.
The question of whether this is “good” or “bad” is certainly not a simple one. Many people see nothing wrong with parents wanting the best for their children, including a focus on health and well-being. If a couple already intends to use IVF and has multiple embryos, why not choose the one with the best chances of a healthy life? This is a point frequently raised. Then there’s the argument that this could, in theory, accelerate human evolution, or at least improve our overall quality of life.
However, the downsides are significant. The potential for these technologies to be used to discriminate against certain traits or groups is very real. Imagine the pressure on children who are “designed” to meet specific standards, knowing their parents invested heavily in their genetic selection. The potential for the company promising these things to be ultimately fraudulent is also a concern. They could make claims that are not scientifically supported. This is particularly concerning given the long-term nature of the results – the impacts of these choices won’t become fully apparent for years, if not decades.
One of the biggest concerns centers on the potential for unintended consequences. In the pursuit of a “better” human, what traits might be overlooked, or what unforeseen health complications might arise? The history of science is filled with examples of well-intentioned interventions that had unexpected and negative results. There is the risk of reinforcing the idea of a “perfect” child, and the potential for societal pressure to conform to increasingly narrow standards of what is considered desirable.
The technology isn’t perfect either. The methodology used to extract and analyze DNA can potentially impact the chances of a successful embryo transfer. This further complicates the decision-making process for couples who are already navigating the challenges of IVF.
Ultimately, the rise of these embryo-ranking services forces us to confront some uncomfortable questions about our values and our aspirations for the future. Are we prepared to define and measure human worth based on genetic potential? Are we willing to accept the risks of unintended consequences in pursuit of a “better” human? This is a debate that demands careful consideration, ethical frameworks, and open discussion as we navigate this evolving landscape of assisted reproductive technologies.