An embryo-screening service is drawing sharp criticism from scientists, ethicists and faith leaders, who say the technology turns parents into shoppers and children into products.
Manhattan biotech startup Nucleus Genomics is marketing its Nucleus Embryo platform as a tool for genetic “optimization” by allowing couples undergoing in vitro fertilization to upload and rank DNA from up to 20 embryos based on potential intelligence, anxiety, addiction risk and more.
For a minimum of $5,999, parents can receive “polygenic risk scores” estimating the likelihood their future children might develop diseases such as Alzheimer’s or diabetes — or possess traits such as high IQ, low BMI, anxiety resistance or a particular eye color.
“Every parent wants to give their children more than they had,” Nucleus Genomics posted on X alongside a promotional video showing a dashboard where users can sort embryos by projected traits.
But to some critics, the premise behind the tool is less about love and more about control.
“For some parents, it looks for things like the potential for diabetes, the potential for deafness, conditions that are treatable or healable with today’s modern medicine,” Emma Waters, policy analyst for the Center for Technology and the Human Person at The Heritage Foundation, told The Washington Times.
“But in many other cases, the ones that are equally, if not more disturbing, parents are actively using this technology to select children that are the smartest, have a certain personality, are the right sex or otherwise fit their model image of what a child should be — whether that’s blue eyes or blonde hair or something else,” Ms. Waters said.
Nucleus founder Kian Sadeghi, 25, has hailed the platform as an evolution of reproductive freedom that allows parents to give their unborn children the best shot at a happy life.
“It’s about living a longer, healthier life,” Mr. Sadeghi told The Wall Street Journal, arguing that genetic screening for embryos is no different from adults testing themselves for risk markers.
Damien Morris, director of research and public affairs consultancy Futureproof, said that’s a hard argument for skeptics to overcome.
“For one, it’s difficult to argue against rights-based arguments with consequentialist arguments. It’s also difficult to challenge rights-based arguments by invoking competing rights,” Mr. Morris posted last week on X.
“Moreover, politically progressive critics of embryo selection often struggle to mount an effective argument against parental choice in this context which doesn’t backfire against their pro-choice position in the abortion debate,” he added.
But Father Tad Pacholczyk, senior ethicist at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, says that trying to gauge the quality of a child is an immoral attempt at control, no matter how you slice it.
“Couples will now be tempted to impose quality control and eugenics onto their vulnerable and voiceless children,” he told the Catholic News Agency.
He warned that the technology represents a “command and control mentality over procreation,” one that treats human embryos “like raw material.”
Much of the backlash on social media has deemed Nucleus’ announcement as “dystopian.”
“I was going to type something like Noah, get the boat,” one venture capitalist posted on X. “But honestly, the reality of this just makes me so nauseous.”
Others accused the company of “trying to create an app store for embryos” and “playing God with a ranking algorithm.”
Another widely shared post declared: “It’s eugenics with a slick UI.”
Genetics vs. environment
The “polygenic scores” that Nucleus Genomics touts as the backbone of its services aren’t widely accepted in clinical practice, according to multiple sources.
A 2024 study from Cornell University found that polygenic scores include significant statistical uncertainty, underestimate true variance and yield overconfident, unreliable predictions.
“There are many, many factors that may be involved in why someone gets a disease or not,” Columbia University bioethicist Robert Klitzman told Inc. “Testing in the way the company’s doing is not going to be necessarily clinically valid or reliable.”
Even when it comes to breast cancer — one of the conditions Nucleus claims to assess — only a quarter of cases are linked to genetics. Most, Mr. Klitzman said, stem from environmental factors.
Nevertheless, Patrick Brown, fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, said he fears this technology will become “the new standard” among those parents who can afford it.
“Of course, wouldn’t why wouldn’t you go through this to ensure that your kid has the greatest chance of health and success and IQ and wealth and athletic ability and beauty and all the rest,” Mr. Brown told The Times. “I mean, are you a terrible parent if you’re not doing these things? I think that that may become, among the sort of high income brackets, that may become the new standard.”
Critics also argue that such filtering systems are steering the biotech community to focus on the wrong things.
“When you promote a technology that prefers to destroy the potential for disease or adverse outcomes,” Ms. Waters told The Times. “What you’re intentionally or unintentionally doing is dissuading scientists from investing in life, saving research and treatment later on in life. So the more that you prioritize simply destroying embryos with a certain condition, the less likely you are to see any real innovation or advancements in that field of research for future children.”
Mr. Sadeghi, a Thiel fellow who raised $34 million for Nucleus Genomics after dropping out of the University of Pennsylvania, has embraced the controversy.
In a promotional video released recently, he likened genetic screening to IVF itself — once controversial, now common.
“The same is true with genetic optimization,” he said. “The technology is now here and it’s here to stay.” Indeed, one source close to the biotech industry told The Washington Times that this is just the first of several companies set to announce similar products.
For those who say children should be seen as a gift, not a commodity, they hope Mr. Sadhegi is wrong.
“Human embryos, among the most vulnerable of God’s creatures, have been entrusted to us to be received unconditionally and lovingly,” Father Pacholczyk told CNA. “Every child, exactly as he or she arrives into our families, is precious, good, and beautiful.”
Mr. Brown said it’s clear that “simply not enough” philosophical questions were asked before plowing ahead with creating this technology.
“What’s that quote from ‘Jurassic Park?’” he said. “Ah, yeah: ’Your scientists were so concerned about whether they could, they never thought about whether they should.’ That’s where we’re at.”
