A Colorado couple has welcomed a son, Dax, conceived through in-vitro fertilization and selected from a pool of six embryos based on genetic analysis predicting future traits, sparking debate about the ethics of “designer babies.” Arthur Zey, a technology product manager, and Chase Popp, an elementary school teacher, openly embraced the process, viewing it as a responsible step toward optimizing their child’s potential.
The couple utilized Herasight, a company that analyzes embryos for traits like IQ, height, and predisposition to certain diseases, for a reported $50,000. Herasight, which began operating last year, provides parents with data intended to indicate future characteristics and potential health risks. Zey and Popp were given access to the technology as part of a proof-of-concept program, according to reports.
“Looking at Dax, he overall seems like he feels great, he looks healthy to me,” Popp told the Daily Mail. “When [people] say he’s a designer baby, I take that as a huge compliment: yes, he is a designer baby, and we’re proud of it and he should be proud of it.” Zey expressed a wish that his own parents had access to similar technology, suggesting it could have enhanced his physical attributes.
The practice raises complex ethical questions, drawing criticism from bioethicists and concerns about exacerbating social inequalities. Arthur Caplan, head of medical ethics at Modern York University Grossman School of Medicine, noted a trend of wealthy individuals seeking genetic advantages for their offspring, driven by concerns about future competition and survival. “Most of them are not concerned with what happens to you or me: they’re interested in what happens in Silicon Valley with their reproduction,” Caplan said, suggesting motivations tied to space travel or maintaining an edge over artificial intelligence.
The pursuit of genetic enhancement echoes themes explored in the 1997 science fiction film Gattaca, which depicted a society stratified by genetic makeup. Concerns about a similar divide are amplified by the involvement of Silicon Valley investors in companies offering reproductive gene editing and genetic screening.
Preventive, a San Francisco-based startup backed by OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman and Coinbase co-founder Brian Armstrong, has raised $30 million for research into reproductive gene editing. Armstrong has publicly envisioned a future of IVF clinics offering genetic testing and editing to “accelerate evolution.” Nucleus Genomics, with PayPal founder Peter Thiel among its backers, is actively marketing genetic screening services with slogans like “Have Your Best Baby.”
However, the scientific basis for predicting complex traits like intelligence remains contested. Fyodor Urnov, a director at the Innovative Genomics Institute at the University of California, Berkeley, argues that companies offering such services are “deceiving themselves and the public,” and that their true aim is “baby improvement” rather than addressing genetic disease.
Jonathan Anomaly, Herasight’s research and communications director, cautioned against using loaded terms like “eugenics,” arguing that the focus should be on individual autonomy. He maintains that Herasight’s analysis, based on data from over half a million individuals, provides valuable insights into genetic predispositions. He acknowledged that the service is currently accessible primarily to the wealthy, but anticipates costs will decrease as the technology matures.
The technology to screen for chromosomal abnormalities and single-gene disorders has been available for decades. However, Herasight’s focus on polygenic traits – those influenced by multiple genes – is more challenging, with Urnov describing it as “near impossible” to reliably predict outcomes.
In 2018, Chinese scientist He Jiankui sparked international condemnation after announcing the birth of gene-edited babies, claiming to have modified their DNA to confer immunity to HIV. He was subsequently sentenced to three years in prison and Beijing banned gene editing in reproductive cells. He, upon his release in 2022, has expressed a desire to continue his research, but warned against using the technology for non-medical enhancements, calling it a “Nazi eugenic experiment” and suggesting those involved should be arrested.
