Americans Are Ready To Test Embryos For Future College Chances, Survey Shows
Imagine that you were provided no-cost fertility treatment and also offered a free DNA test to gauge which of those little IVF embryos floating in a dish stood the best chance of getting into a top college someday.
Would you have the test performed?
If you said yes, you’re among about 40% percent of Americans who told pollsters they’d be more likely than not to test and pick IVF embryos for intellectual aptitude, despite hand-wringing by ethicists and gene scientists who think it’s a bad idea.
The opinion survey, published in the journal Science, was carried out by economists and other researchers who say surprisingly strong support for the embryo tests means the US might need to hurry up and set policies for the technology.
To put the results in context, the percentage of people who would test embryos for potential smarts is similar to the proportion of Americans who say they would consider an electric vehicle as their next car purchase.
“I certainly don’t think this is something good. I am concerned about it,” says Michelle N. Meyer, a professor of bioethics with the Geisinger Health System, who coauthored the report. “The bigger risk is saying nothing and letting this unfold against a laissez-faire regulatory and market system.”
One company in the US, Genomic Prediction, is already marketing embryo prediction tests, but so far it only offers scores related to the chance a child will develop common diseases, such as schizophrenia or diabetes, later in life. It says it’s not offering educational aptitude scores and has no plans to.
Specialists have been raising concerns about predictive embryo tests in general: last year, the European Society for Human Genetics called them an “unproven, unethical practice” and suggested they be forbidden until policies governing the use of the technologies can be developed.
One problem with the tests is that it will be challenging to prove they really work. It would take decades, for instance, before anyone could judge whether they accurately predicted a newborn’s health risks. Meyer thinks the Federal Trade Commission should keep close tabs on companies’ advertising claims.
And if the tests do work, that’s also a problem, according to Meyer and her coauthors, who include the geneticist Patrick Turley and the economist Daniel J. Benjamin. They say embryo tests could “exacerbate existing inequalities” in society—for instance, if only people in certain socioeconomic groups use them to have healthier, taller, or smarter offspring.
“For the foreseeable future and maybe forever, this technology is going to be available only to people who are already wealthy or are privileged in other ways,” says Meyer. “To the extent that this does have an impact, and gives any offspring a boost, [this] is not something that is going to be equally accessible to everybody. Just as wealth is inherited, this is literally things that are inherited. You could imagine a world in which this spins out over generations and helps exacerbate socioeconomic gaps.”
Educational attainmentThe new poll compared people’s willingness to advance their children’s prospects in three ways: using SAT prep courses, embryo tests, and gene editing on embryos. It found some support even for the most radical option, genetic modification of children, which is prohibited in the US and many other countries. About 28% of those polled said they’d probably do that if it was safe.
“These are important results. They support the existence of a gap between the generally negative attitudes of researchers and health professionals … and the attitudes of the general public,” says Shai Carmi, a geneticist and statistician at the Hebrew University in Israel, who studies embryo selection technology.
The authors of the new poll are wrestling with the consequences of information that they helped discover via a series of ever larger studies to locate genetic causes of human social and cognitive traits, including sexual orientation and intelligence. That includes a report published last year on how the DNA differences among more than 3 million people related to how far they’d gone in school, a life result that is correlated with a person’s intelligence.
The result of such research is a so-called “polygenic score,” or a genetic test that can predict from genes whether—among other things—someone is going to be more or less likely to attend college.
Of course, environmental factors matter plenty, and DNA is not destiny. Yet the gene tests are surprisingly predictive. In their poll, the researchers told people to assume that around 3% of kids will go to a top-100 college. By picking the one of 10 IVF embryos with the highest gene score, parents would increase that chance to 5% for their kid.
It’s tempting to dismiss the advantage gained as negligible, but “assuming they are right,” Carmi says, it’s actually “a very large relative increase” in the chance of going to such a school for the offspring in question—about 67%.
Consumer polygenic prediction tests for a number of traits are already available from 23andMe. That company, for instance, offers a “weight report” that predicts a person’s body-mass index. Carmi says education predictions and body-mass predictions have similar accuracy.
Despite the relatively good performance of the “educational attainment” score, 23andMe does not offer these results to its customers. Just like Genomic Prediction, the embryo testing company, it says it wants to keep its focus on health information.
Carmi says he doesn’t think it’s “much of a mystery” why intelligence predictions aren’t on offer: “It’s controversial, draws negative attention, has limited utility and adds … possibly negative effects on other traits. It makes perfect sense not to offer it.”
Public opinionFertility experts will discuss embryo prediction technology at a meeting of the ethics board of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine being held today, says the industry group’s spokesman, Sean Tipton. He says IVF practitioners are still divided on the value of the tests. “We would say patients need to be very cautious about claims in this area, and need to be talking to well qualified genetic counselors before they proceed with these tests, which are really complicated and part of a rapidly moving field of science,” says Tipton.
Although scholastic aptitude tests for embryos aren’t being sold yet, the researchers who carried out the poll say it wouldn’t be safe to assume the technology will stay bottled up for long. For instance, before IVF was developed in the 1970s, almost everyone was against “test tube babies.” After it worked, opinion shifted rapidly.
The current poll found only 6% of people are morally opposed to IVF today, only about 17% have strong moral qualms about testing embryos, and 38% would probably do to boost education prospects if given the opportunity. “The sharp turn in public opinion about IVF itself shows that innovations that are initially met with limited uptake and even active resistance can quickly become normalized and widely accepted,” they write.
As far as MIT Technology Review could determine, no child has yet been picked from a petri dish on the basis of its educational potential score. But that moment may not be far off. Early users of Genomic Prediction’s health scores who’ve spoken about their experience come from segments of society with strong preoccupations with cognitive performance.
One couple who were customers of Genomic Prediction, Simone Collins and her husband Malcolm, say they are building a large family using IVF and genomic health prediction tests. While they were not able to access educational prowess scores for their last child, Collins says next time could be different.
In an email, Collins said she has “identified companies” that “will provide this information.” She added, “We’ll absolutely be factoring it in with future embryo selection.”
Embryo Transfer For IVF: What You Need To Know
The main risk of embryo transfers, according to Dr. Christianson, is conceiving multiples, such as twins or triplets. This is considered a risk because multiple pregnancies have a higher risk of complications for both the pregnant person and babies.
However, Dr. Christianson says the risk of conceiving multiples through an embryo transfer has been going down in recent years as the number of embryos that are transferred is reduced. Nowadays, an elective single embryo transfer is strongly recommended in most cases, particularly if the patient is younger. And those who do transfer more than one embryo are counseled on the risk of multiples beforehand.
In addition to conceiving multiples, another risk of an embryo transfer is an ectopic pregnancy, where the embryo implants outside of the uterus, often in the fallopian tube. Even though the embryo is placed directly in the uterus during an embryo transfer, there’s the chance of it migrating, explains Dr. Christianson. Ectopic pregnancies cannot be carried to term and pose potentially life-threatening risk to the pregnant person.
The final risk of an embryo transfer is not conceiving from the process. “This is very sad, but it can certainly happen,” notes Dr. Christianson. It’s not particularly uncommon either, as even a couple without fertility issues has about a 1 in 4 chance of conceiving within the first cycle of IVF .
Find An OB/GYN - Gynecologists Near You
Sesame Care helps you find and book top-rated doctors, on demand. Book a doctor appointment, test, lab or procedure in minutes. Check out the obstetricians and gynecologists in your area.
Chinese Scientists Create System To Care For Embryos In Artificial Womb
Parents of the future rejoice! Scientists in China have developed an AI nanny that they say could one day take care of human fetuses in a lab.
Researchers in Suzhou, China, claim to have created a system that can monitor and care for embryos as they grow into fetuses while growing inside an artificial womb, The South China Morning Post reports.
The robotic nanny is already reportedly caring for a number of animal embryos. Experimentation on human embryos, however, is still forbidden under international law, as the newspaper points out.
The team published their findings in the Journal of Biomedical Engineering last month. In the paper, they detail an "online monitoring system" designed for the "long-term culture of embryos."
The system could theoretically allow parents to grow a baby in a lab, thereby eliminating the need for a human to carry a child. The researchers go as far as to say that this system would be safer than traditional childbearing.
Beyond those claims, though, it remains unclear whether the system could actually bring an embryo, mouse or otherwise, to term.
As it exists right now, the artificial womb is a container that grows a number of mouse embryos in a row of cubes filled with nutritious fluids, according to the paper.
The AI nanny is reportedly able to monitor the embryos, detect changes, and adjust their artificial environment accordingly. It can even alert a technician in case an embryo develops a defect or dies.
The technology is still very much in its nascent stages, but a looming population crisis in China is only serving to accelerate its development.
"I don’t think technology would be a problem," one anonymous researcher at the Capital Institute of Pediatrics in Beijing, told the SCMP, adding that the tech could risk turning hospitals into factories that churn out babies — and no hospital "would want to bear this responsibility."
It’s a fascinating ethical issue that’s emerging from an equally fascinating piece of technology. If ever realized, it could certainly help couples who are struggling to have kids to finally become parents — but we do need to be wary of the considerable ethical implications of such a system as well.
READ MORE: Chinese scientists create AI nanny to look after babies in artificial womb [The South China Morning Post]
More on population crisis: Data Shows that China’s Population Is About to Start Actively Shrinking
Image by Getty Images
Read This Next2.09.23 Developments
Magazine Publishes Serious Errors in First AI-Generated Health Article
2.07.23 Genetics
Scientist Who Gene Edited Human Babies Says Mistakes Were Made
1.26.23 Developments
Eccentric Wealthy Guy Spends $2 Million Per Year Staving Off Aging
1.21.23 Neuroscience/Brain Science
Bad News: the Horrific Zombie Fungus in "The Last of Us" Is Real
1.11.23 Neuroscience/Brain Science
People Thought an AI Was Brilliantly Analyzing Their Personalities, But It Was Actually Giving Out Feedback Randomly
