Sigal Samuel examines the boundary between embryo testing and eugenics

In a column, Sigal Samuel examines where the boundary lies between seeking a healthy baby through modern reproductive technology and entering the territory of eugenics. Responding to an expecting parent utilizing in vitro fertilization, the columnist breaks down the actual capabilities and ethical traps of genetic screening options currently marketed to prospective parents.

Embryo Testing Options Offered by Fertility Clinics

The reader writing into the advice column states that their fertility clinic is strongly encouraging preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy, commonly known as PGT-A. Operating since the 1990s, PGT-A screens embryos for conditions such as Down syndrome while also revealing the biological sex of each embryo. Alongside this established method, newer commercial entities now offer polygenic testing. These emerging screens claim to evaluate complex polygenic traits influenced by thousands of genes, ranging from breast cancer and diabetes risks to psychiatric conditions like depression, alongside non-disease traits such as adult height and intelligence.

Statistical Misleading Claims in Polygenic Risk Scores

Sasha Gusev explains that polygenic testing companies frequently exaggerate their risk-reduction estimates by exploiting statistical assumptions. When a testing firm asserts that an embryo’s absolute risk for Type 2 diabetes drops by 12 percent, consumers often assume their child’s lifetime chance of developing the disease falls by that amount. In reality, Gusev clarifies that a child who would have developed diabetes is instead shifted to the high end of pre-diabetes or will simply manifest the condition a few years later. While delaying the onset of a chronic illness holds value, these commercial offerings fall short of providing the guaranteed bill of health that prospective parents imagine. As Sasha Gusev writes, Typical risk reduction estimates tend to exploit statistical assumptions to overstate their benefits and lead to confusion, a point reinforced by the epidemiologist Abby Li.

Psychological and Societal Risks of Embryo Selection

The column highlights the biological concept of pleiotropy, pointing out that single genes often influence multiple traits simultaneously. Attempting to select against a negative trait like anxiety might unintentionally bar a child from a positive trait like creativity, which shares biological pathways. Beyond genetics, the columnist warns that commodifying children through trait selection creates severe psychological risks if a child fails to match the specific IQ or physical traits their parents purchased.

Financial accessibility compounds these moral dilemmas, with companies such as Orchid charging $2,500 per screened embryo. While technologies may become cheaper over time, widespread adoption risks creating implicit societal coercion where parents feel pressured to genetically optimize their children to prevent professional disadvantages. The piece concludes that prospective parents should resist profit-driven fear tactics and instead rely on the concept of satisficing—choosing an option that is good enough rather than pursuing an impossible standard of biological perfection.

Additional Recommendations on Memory and Literature

To further explore the nuances of memory and human experience, the column suggests reading the short story “Funes the Memorious” by Jorge Luis Borges.