Genetic Optimization or Playing God?

Nucleus Genomics, a genetic testing startup founded by 25-year-old Kian Sadeghi, has once again found itself at the center of a heated controversy with the launch of its new product, Nucleus Embryo. The company claims that its test can predict the appearance, intelligence, and complex health attributes of IVF embryos, allowing parents to choose which embryos to select and which to discard.

The announcement was met with widespread criticism, with many experts and commentators expressing concern over the ethics and accuracy of the test. Nucleus Embryo uses polygenic scores, which calculate the probabilities of complex illnesses occurring within populations, to determine an individual’s risk. However, experts argue that this is not the same as discovering a specific gene that gives a person a high risk of a particular disease.

According to the National Human Genome Research Institute, polygenic risk scores are not yet routinely used by health professionals due to the lack of guidelines for practice and the need for further research on how these scores are generated. Nucleus Genomics defends its method, citing a 2018 paper that developed validated methods for five common diseases. However, the company’s spokesperson pointed out that the paper was advocating for screenings to help individuals make lifestyle or therapeutic decisions, not for creating designer babies.

The controversy surrounding Nucleus Genomics is not new. The company has faced criticism in the past for its product Nucleus IQ, which claims to tell users how much their genetics influence intelligence. The product was blasted as “bad science and big business” by some critics, and Sadeghi was forced to publish a lengthy defense of his company’s methodology.

While Nucleus Genomics is not currently conducting the tests via IVF lab partners itself, it is partnering with Genomic Prediction, which works with IVF clinics. Parents can voluntarily upload genetic data information to Nucleus if they want to pursue the test. The company’s CEO, Sadeghi, claims that the technology is now here and it’s here to stay, but many experts and commentators remain skeptical.

The launch of Nucleus Embryo has sparked a heated debate over the ethics of genetic optimization and the potential consequences of creating designer babies. As the technology continues to evolve, it remains to be seen whether Nucleus Genomics will be able to navigate the complex web of regulations and ethics surrounding genetic testing.

Experts Weigh In

Dr. Robert Green, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School, expressed concerns over the accuracy and reliability of polygenic scores. “These scores are not foolproof and can be influenced by a variety of factors, including population demographics and environmental influences,” he said.

Dr. Marcy Darnovsky, executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society, argued that the test is a form of eugenics. “This is a form of genetic engineering that allows parents to choose the traits of their children, which is a deeply problematic and potentially dystopian idea,” she said.

The Future of Genetic Testing

As the debate over genetic optimization continues, it remains to be seen how the technology will evolve. Some experts predict that genetic testing will become more widespread and accessible, while others warn of the potential risks and consequences.

One thing is certain: the launch of Nucleus Embryo has sparked a much-needed conversation about the ethics and implications of genetic testing. As the technology continues to advance, it is crucial that we carefully consider the potential consequences and ensure that genetic testing is used responsibly and for the betterment of society.

A Response from Nucleus Genomics

In response to the criticism, Nucleus Genomics released a statement defending its method and the potential benefits of genetic testing. “Our goal is to provide parents with accurate and reliable information to help them make informed decisions about their children’s health and well-being,” the statement read.

However, many experts and commentators remain unconvinced, and the debate over genetic optimization is far from over.