Screening unborn children for traits like sex, intelligence, and health risks is now a reality.

Devlin H, Burgis T, Pegg D, et al. US startup charging couples to ‘screen embryos for IQ.’ The Guardian. October 18, 2024.

A U.S.-based biotech start-up, Heliospect Genomics, claims it can offer this cutting-edge service to prospective parents.

According to its website, the company is devoted to​ improving “human health and wellbeing through the advancement of genomic prediction.”

Heliospect Genomics. 2024.

The cost? $50,000 to test 100 embryos.

Devlin H, Burgis T, Pegg D, et al. US startup charging couples to ‘screen embryos for IQ.’ The Guardian. October 18, 2024.

Naturally, this has incited an ethical debate about the experimental technologies of polygenic embryo screening.

The company’s prediction tools were built using “data provided by UK Biobank, a taxpayer-funded store of genetic material donated by half a million British volunteers, which aims to only share data for projects that are ‘in the public interest.’” However, embryo selection based on IQ isn’t legal in the United Kingdom like it is in the US, where embryology is less strictly regulated. 

Heliospect told The Guardian that it was operating in compliance with the law and in “stealth mode” ahead of a planned public launch.

The ethics behind embryonic screening

Embryonic screening is a hot topic in ethics, especially in the US, where its commercial availability is unregulated. A 2024 JAMA survey found that nearly 75% of US adults support embryonic screening during IVF to help determine the likelihood of certain health conditions or traits.

Furrer RA, Barlevy D, Pereira S, et al. Public Attitudes, Interests, and Concerns Regarding Polygenic Embryo Screening. JAMA. 2024;7(5):e2410832.

That said, those surveyed also made it clear that embryonic screening could have “potential negative outcomes for individuals and society,” and that people need access not only to education on the benefits of this screening, but also on the limitations and ethical hazards of the practice. The journal concluded, “These findings suggest that it is critical for health care professionals and medical societies to consider and understand the perspectives of diverse stakeholders (eg, patients undergoing IVF, clinicians, and the general public), given the absence of regulation and the recent commercial availability of PES [polygenic embryo screening].”

Experts across various industries have complex thoughts on the topic. Thomas Kluz, Managing Director of the Venture Lab Niterra Group, which focuses on healthcare-related venture capital, says that he’s seen a lot of technological breakthroughs that have pushed the boundaries of society, but thinks that “embryo screening for nonmedical traits is particularly complex and has particularly far-reaching implications.”

“I am not just concerned about the obvious problem of creating a genetic upper class. There is a more insidious one developing: compounded privilege acceleration,” Kluz says. “If genetic enhancement simply seems to combine with something that already has socioeconomic advantages, we're not just creating inequality; we're possibly making it a permanent part of a species' future.”

“Can you imagine a world where your resume consists of not only your education and work experience, but [also] your genetic optimization status?” he asks. 

Kluz says he’s learned a lot by working with biotech start-ups, and that what we know about embryonic screening is nothing compared to what we don’t know. “When we start selecting for intelligence-associated genes, we're plucking threads out of a tapestry we don’t fully understand,” he says. Selecting for higher IQ, for example, could increase the risk of other health issues.

The 'feature creep' explained

Without strong regulatory frameworks, Kluz says he worries about the concept of 'feature creep', “where we start with disease prevention but end up with more cosmetic or performance-based traits as the technology becomes normalized.” 

Echoing Kluz, Goldberg wonders where the line is drawn between the ethical and unethical when it comes to ‘designer babies.’ 

“Will screening expand to everything from IQ to hair color and body shape and size? It would likely increase socioeconomic disparities and expand discrimination. After decades of working toward equality, this could reverse the progress that has been made by reinforcing superiority and inferiority complexes.”

Goldberg says that as technology advances—something that feels like science fiction but is ultimately reality—the conversation will only get more complex. “The question isn’t only whether this can or should be stopped, but how it would be regulated before leading to unintended consequences,” she says.