American startups provide IQ assessment for embryos to forecast children's intellectual abilities.
In the heart of Berkeley, California, the Berkeley Genomics Project is at the forefront of a contentious debate surrounding genetic embryo testing. This cutting-edge research initiative, along with other companies like Nucleus Genomics and Herasight, is offering genetic embryo analysis for a range of diseases, from cancer to Alzheimer's, and for predicted intelligence, at a cost between $6,000 and $50,000.
The practice, however, has sparked public debate, with critics viewing it as a form of "21st-century eugenics." The test developed by two San Francisco engineers analyses the likelihood of various diseases and predicted intelligence, with the highest-scoring embryo being deemed the "preferred option." This approach, according to Kathy Hasson, deputy director of the Center for Genetics and Society in California, normalizes the idea of "superior" and "inferior" genes.
The ethical implications and controversies surrounding genetic embryo analysis for disease risks and predicted intelligence largely centre on concerns about the moral status of embryos, exacerbation of social inequality, eugenics, and regulatory challenges. The modern use of genetic technologies for embryo analysis is often framed as a new form of eugenics because it can involve selective breeding for preferred genetic traits. Although it is parent-driven and not government-imposed, critics argue it risks repeating the social harms of historic eugenics by promoting genetic stratification and discrimination, especially where socioeconomic disparities influence access.
Moreover, unintended consequences and predictive uncertainty remain significant concerns. Current genetic knowledge explains only a small fraction of cognitive differences (5-10%), with the average IQ gain through embryo selection estimated at 3-4 points. There is also concern about unwanted side effects, such as a higher likelihood of autism spectrum conditions linked to selection. This raises questions about the reliability and ethics of using such predictions.
Regulatory and governance gaps also pose challenges. Many countries have restrictions on embryo selection for traits beyond health, but places like the U.S. have regulatory gaps allowing rapid market expansion of genetic testing services without sufficient oversight, raising concerns about consumer protection and ethical standards.
The Berkeley Genomics Project, however, is not solely focused on genetic embryo testing. It also aims to provide an option for individuals to opt out of artificial intelligence and develop methods to align AI with human values. Benson-Tissen, co-founder of the Berkeley Genomics Project, believes that those with enhanced intelligence can develop methods to align AI with human values. The group of Berkeley scientists consider genetic modification as a tool to protect against threats from artificial intelligence.
The ethical questions surrounding genetic embryo testing are profound, touching on issues of embryo respect, social justice, and the potential emergence of a new era of eugenics shaped by market forces and cutting-edge biotechnologies. Governments and bioethics bodies emphasize the need for careful regulation, public dialogue, and balancing benefits with respect for human dignity and social equity. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) recently reported on this issue, highlighting the need for a nuanced and informed discussion about the future of genetic embryo testing.
Read also:
- Eight strategies for promoting restful slumber in individuals with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy
- Exploring the Strength of Minimally Digestible Diets: A Roadmap to Gastrointestinal Healing
- Secondhand Smoke: Understanding its Nature, Impact on Health, and Additional Facts
- Could a Secret Heart Rhythm Device Infection Be Causing Your Illness?
