UK IVF Couples Exploit Loophole to Use Genetic Predictions for Embryo Selection, but Effectiveness and Ethics are Questioned.
In a surprising turn of events, couples undergoing In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) in the UK have discovered an apparent loophole that allows them to use genetic predictions to rank their embryos based on traits such as IQ. This practice, known as polygenic embryo screening or PGT-P, involves analyzing vast genetic databases to generate predictive scores for physical and mental characteristics.
The technology relies on complex algorithms that capture the heritable component of traits like height and intelligence, which are influenced by multiple genes interacting with each other and their environment. However, critics argue that these predictions are probabilistic and do not guarantee a specific outcome. "Polygenic scores are typically very crude and only capture a tiny fraction of the heritable component of complex traits like IQ," says Professor Frances Flinter.
The grey area surrounding PGT-P emerged due to changes in genetic sequencing technology, making it possible for laboratories to generate low-resolution genome sequences for each embryo. These sequences can provide insights into an embryo's sex and, when combined with parental data, predict certain traits. Companies in the US have already begun offering commercial health and IQ prediction services.
Despite its potential benefits, many experts question the ethics of using PGT-P for embryo selection. "The use of PGT-P represents premature adoption of inadequately validated tests," warns Professor Flinter. The fertility treatment regulator HFEA has also expressed concerns about the accuracy and validity of these predictions in the context of IVF.
While some advocates argue that parents have the right to make informed decisions using available technology, others caution against relying on untested predictions for selecting embryos. As the debate surrounding PGT-P continues, one thing is clear: the practice raises complex questions about the intersection of genetic engineering and reproductive choices.
In a surprising turn of events, couples undergoing In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) in the UK have discovered an apparent loophole that allows them to use genetic predictions to rank their embryos based on traits such as IQ. This practice, known as polygenic embryo screening or PGT-P, involves analyzing vast genetic databases to generate predictive scores for physical and mental characteristics.
The technology relies on complex algorithms that capture the heritable component of traits like height and intelligence, which are influenced by multiple genes interacting with each other and their environment. However, critics argue that these predictions are probabilistic and do not guarantee a specific outcome. "Polygenic scores are typically very crude and only capture a tiny fraction of the heritable component of complex traits like IQ," says Professor Frances Flinter.
The grey area surrounding PGT-P emerged due to changes in genetic sequencing technology, making it possible for laboratories to generate low-resolution genome sequences for each embryo. These sequences can provide insights into an embryo's sex and, when combined with parental data, predict certain traits. Companies in the US have already begun offering commercial health and IQ prediction services.
Despite its potential benefits, many experts question the ethics of using PGT-P for embryo selection. "The use of PGT-P represents premature adoption of inadequately validated tests," warns Professor Flinter. The fertility treatment regulator HFEA has also expressed concerns about the accuracy and validity of these predictions in the context of IVF.
While some advocates argue that parents have the right to make informed decisions using available technology, others caution against relying on untested predictions for selecting embryos. As the debate surrounding PGT-P continues, one thing is clear: the practice raises complex questions about the intersection of genetic engineering and reproductive choices.
... I mean, using genetic predictions to pick the smartest kid? Sounds like some science fiction movie plot, but I guess that's what happens when you've got tech companies making billions off your DNA data 
. And let's be real, if they can predict IQ, what's next? Predicting job potential or social media influencers? 
It's like we're playing God with our genes.
. And what's with the HFEA being slow on the uptake? Can't they see how fast this tech is advancing?
I'm just saying, let's take a step back and have a national conversation about what it means to be human in this brave new world 
.
They're gonna create a genetic lottery to pick the perfect kids! 
The whole thing just feels like a bad sci-fi movie – you know, the kind where scientists are all 'We can predict everything with our fancy algorithms!' 
But really, we still have no idea how genetics works. Like, I'm pretty sure my kid's height is not gonna be predicted by some algorithm, unless they're actually a human version of the Michelin Man... 
.
, but I'm not sure we're ready to tackle it just yet 
on a serious note though, I'm not sure how much more invasive this tech can get... like what if you're using PGT-P and the predicted traits don't match out in real life? do you still have to deal with the awkwardness of 'oh yeah, we thought our kid was gonna be a genius but nope they love playing video games' 
So, basically these UK couples are using some fancy algorithm to predict traits like IQ in their embryos? 
Mind blown! But, if it's only probabilistic and not guaranteed, what's the point of even trying? 
. And it looks like PGT-P is becoming more popular, with a growth rate of 20% annually since 2018 
. But what about all those factors that we still don't fully understand, like epigenetics and environmental influences? Shouldn't we be focusing on those instead of just relying on predictions? 
.
. Are we really looking at the big picture here or are we just cherry-picking data points to fit our own desires? The fact that these predictions are probabilistic and not guaranteed is what worries me - it feels like a gamble 
, but who's to say what's going to happen in this kid's life anyway?
I'm all for innovation and progress, but when does that cross over into exploitation? It's good to see the HFEA is keeping an eye on things, at least.
If it's not 100% accurate, what if we're missing out on other factors that make each kid unique? I mean, intelligence is way more complicated than just a bunch of genes adding up. It's like trying to predict the weather with too much math - sometimes you get it right, but most of the time it's just random 
And what about all those untested variables... isn't that just playing God? 
.
Do these predictions actually work as well as everyone thinks they do? And what about all the factors that go into making a person who they are, not just some random genes? 
! I mean, who wouldn't want to know if their embryo is gonna be a genius or not? 
The whole idea of using "predictions" for embryo selection is just so... optimistic 
it's a slippery slope, you know?
. And don't even get me started on the whole "parents have the right to make informed decisions" thing - isn't that just a fancy way of saying "we want to mess with the odds and potentially create some seriously messed up humans"? 