'Genetic Optimization': Embryo Selection Service Raises Concerns
Geplaatst: 23 jun 2025 12:50
'Genetic Optimization': Embryo Selection Service Raises Concerns
Critics Warn of Eugenics and Commodification of Children
MELISSA HALLMAN
Manhattan biotech startup Nucleus Genomics faces backlash from scientists, ethicists, and faith leaders over its Nucleus Embryo platform, which lets couples undergoing IVF rank up to 20 embryos based on traits like intelligence, anxiety, or disease risk. For at least $5,999, parents receive “polygenic risk scores” estimating outcomes such as Alzheimer’s, diabetes, high IQ, or eye color.
“Every parent wants to give their children more than they had,” the company posted on X.
Critics argue it commodifies children. “Parents are actively using this technology to select children that are the smartest, have a certain personality, are the right sex or otherwise fit their model image,” said Emma Waters of The Heritage Foundation.
Founder Kian Sadeghi, 25, defends the platform as advancing reproductive freedom. “It’s about living a longer, healthier life,” he told The Wall Street Journal, likening it to adult genetic testing.
Rev. Tad Pacholczyk of the National Catholic Bioethics Center called it an “immoral attempt at control,” telling the Catholic News Agency it imposes a “command and control mentality over procreation,” treating embryos “like raw material” and echoing eugenics concerns.
A 2024 Cornell study questions polygenic scores’ reliability, citing statistical uncertainty and overconfident predictions. Bioethicist Robert Klitzman told Inc. that environmental factors drive most diseases like breast cancer, not genetics, undermining clinical validity.
Patrick Brown of the Ethics and Public Policy Center told The Times the technology could become standard among wealthy parents, creating pressure to conform. Waters warned it may discourage research by prioritizing embryo destruction over treatment innovation.
Sadeghi, a Thiel fellow who raised $34 million, compares screening to now-accepted IVF. “Your scientists were so concerned about whether they could, they never thought about whether they should,” Brown said, quoting Jurassic Park.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... ng-treats/
https://thedailydots.substack.com/p/gen ... irect=true
Critics Warn of Eugenics and Commodification of Children
MELISSA HALLMAN
Manhattan biotech startup Nucleus Genomics faces backlash from scientists, ethicists, and faith leaders over its Nucleus Embryo platform, which lets couples undergoing IVF rank up to 20 embryos based on traits like intelligence, anxiety, or disease risk. For at least $5,999, parents receive “polygenic risk scores” estimating outcomes such as Alzheimer’s, diabetes, high IQ, or eye color.
“Every parent wants to give their children more than they had,” the company posted on X.
Critics argue it commodifies children. “Parents are actively using this technology to select children that are the smartest, have a certain personality, are the right sex or otherwise fit their model image,” said Emma Waters of The Heritage Foundation.
Founder Kian Sadeghi, 25, defends the platform as advancing reproductive freedom. “It’s about living a longer, healthier life,” he told The Wall Street Journal, likening it to adult genetic testing.
Rev. Tad Pacholczyk of the National Catholic Bioethics Center called it an “immoral attempt at control,” telling the Catholic News Agency it imposes a “command and control mentality over procreation,” treating embryos “like raw material” and echoing eugenics concerns.
A 2024 Cornell study questions polygenic scores’ reliability, citing statistical uncertainty and overconfident predictions. Bioethicist Robert Klitzman told Inc. that environmental factors drive most diseases like breast cancer, not genetics, undermining clinical validity.
Patrick Brown of the Ethics and Public Policy Center told The Times the technology could become standard among wealthy parents, creating pressure to conform. Waters warned it may discourage research by prioritizing embryo destruction over treatment innovation.
Sadeghi, a Thiel fellow who raised $34 million, compares screening to now-accepted IVF. “Your scientists were so concerned about whether they could, they never thought about whether they should,” Brown said, quoting Jurassic Park.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... ng-treats/
https://thedailydots.substack.com/p/gen ... irect=true