In recent years, a plethora of start-ups like Orchid, Nucleus Genomics, and Heliospect Genomics have been trying to turn embryonic selection into a business model by essentially ranking embryos<\/a>\u2014screening them for certain diseases, mental illnesses, and even IQ. Every<\/a> single<\/a> one<\/a> of these companies has faced backlash for their controversial efforts\u2014which have been referred to as \u201ceugenics 2.0<\/a>\u201d\u2014but they seem to just keep coming. <\/p>\n Related Story<\/p>\n Last week, the latest entrant into this embryonic scrum\u2014a company called Herasight\u2014came out of \u201cstealth mode\u201d with a white paper<\/a> detailing how their embryonic tool can screen for the likelihood of 17 diseases (known as a polygenic score) developing within an embryo, effectively giving parents<\/a> the opportunity to select the \u201chealthiest\u201d one of the bunch. The company also asserts that it can do this better than the current rogue\u2019s gallery that comprises its technological competition. <\/p>\n Herasight\u2019s announcement post on X<\/a> (formerly Twitter) also showed a widget displaying predicted embryonic IQs<\/a>\u2014a method that isn\u2019t explained in the accompanying white paper\u2014which left a few experts scratching their heads. <\/p>\n \u201cI’m curious about the decision to roll out the widget without making the research behind it available,\u201d tweeted Sasha Gusev<\/a>, a statistical geneticist at Harvard Medical School. \u201cThe goal is to use eugenics backlash to generate a hype cycle and raise more money (while maintaining plausible deniability), yes?\u201d <\/p>\n (A co-author of the paper, UCLA geneticist Alex Strudwick Young<\/a>, said that details of the IQ predictor will be released in a future white paper.)<\/p>\n All of this is an example of what is called Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Polygenic risk (PGT-P), a process that costs thousands of dollars on top of typical IVF<\/a> costs. A 2023 study in the journal Nature<\/a> found that these services are \u201cnot sufficiently effective or robust for embryo selection,\u201d and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (a U.K. regulator) echoed that sentiment, the stating that PGT-P \u201cdoes not meet the criteria for genetic testing and is currently not backed by evidence from scientific studies.\u201d according to The Telegraph<\/a>. This comes as less of a surprise than some may assume, as the U.S. is basically an embryology wild west and contains virtually no regulations against preimplantation genetic diagnosis, which some see traipsing into the same moral quagmire as eugenics. <\/p>\n Related Story<\/p>\n Of course, the word \u201ceugenics<\/a>\u201d conjures up images from some of the darkest pages of human history, as it provided the false scientific basis for some of the greatest atrocities of the 20th century. In 1998, New Zealand ethicist Nicholas Agar wrote an article<\/a> (and subsequent books) on \u201cliberal eugenics\u201d\u2014the idea that parents should have the right to genetically improve their children\u2014and this is a definition that at least one member of Herasight ardently stands by. <\/p>\n \u201cWhere I have engaged in academic discussion and debate among fellow philosophers regarding \u2018liberal eugenics\u2019[…] my position is that decisions related to reproduction should be left to individual parents, not the state,\u201d Jonathan Anomaly, a co-author on the Herasight white paper, told Hope Not Hate<\/a>, a U.K.-based investigative group last year after accusations of participating in \u201crace science\u201d via their writings and research. Three other authors on the white paper are also discussed in the Hope Not Hate investigative report, and the accusations are similarly troubling. \u201cMy main paper on this subject does not discuss race at all and is clear that while IQ correlates with good social outcomes, it is neither the only factor that matters nor is it an indication of moral worth.\u201d <\/p>\n