Trait-Based Embryo Selection: Claims of 6-9 IQ Point Gains Spark Debate on Science and Societal Impact

A public discussion hosted by Interintellect, featuring political philosopher Adam Gjesdal and bioethicist Dr. Jonathan Anomaly, is set to delve into the burgeoning field of trait-based embryo selection. The event aims to clarify the scientific realities and potential parental expectations, as stated in a recent tweet from Interintellect. This comes as commercial offerings for polygenic embryo screening expand, raising significant questions about its efficacy and ethical implications.

Trait-based embryo selection, also known as polygenic embryo screening (PES), involves genetically testing embryos created via in-vitro fertilization (IVF) to assess their likelihood of developing certain traits or diseases. Companies like Genomic Prediction, Orchid, and Herasight are at the forefront, offering services that screen for predispositions to conditions such as heart disease and schizophrenia. Some firms, including Herasight, even claim the ability to predict non-disease traits like height and intelligence, with one company reportedly offering a potential gain of 6-9 IQ points through selection.

The scientific community remains divided on the broad application of PES. While genetic testing for single-gene disorders is well-established, polygenic traits are complex, influenced by thousands of genes and environmental factors. Critics, including professional biomedical organizations, express concerns about the predictive power of polygenic scores, noting they indicate risk factors rather than definitive outcomes. Furthermore, the accuracy of these tools can vary significantly across different ethnic groups due to biases in the datasets used for training.

Ethical considerations are central to the debate surrounding this technology. Concerns range from the creation of "designer babies" and the potential for exacerbating socioeconomic inequalities due to the high costs, to the "expressivist critique" that suggests selecting against certain traits devalues individuals living with those conditions. The lack of robust regulation in countries like the United States allows for a wide range of services, contrasting with stricter limitations in European nations that typically restrict embryo selection to severe disease avoidance.

The discussion, as highlighted by Interintellect, underscores the urgent need to separate the scientific capabilities from the speculative hype surrounding trait-based embryo selection. > "Trait-based embryo selection is here—but so is the hype. How does the science actually work, and what can parents expect?" Interintellect stated in its tweet. The conversation will likely explore the balance between technological advancement, parental autonomy, and the broader societal implications as this frontier of reproductive medicine continues to evolve.