The Service and Its Implications
According to undercover video footage obtained by the campaign group Hope Not Hate and reviewed by The Guardian, Heliospect has already collaborated with over a dozen couples undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF). The company advertises its services for up to $50,000 (approximately ₹42 lakh) to test 100 embryos, boasting that its technology could help select children with IQ scores six points higher than those conceived naturally. Managers have claimed their methods can yield an IQ gain of more than six points. However, experts warn that such developments represent an ethical minefield.
Katie Hasson, associate director of the Center for Genetics and Society in California, expressed concerns to The Guardian, stating, “One of the biggest problems is that it normalizes this idea of ‘superior’ and ‘inferior’ genetics.” She added that such technologies reinforce the notion that inequality stems from biological differences rather than social factors.
Technology and Data Use
Heliospect’s prediction tools are based on data from the UK Biobank, a publicly funded genetic repository that collects information from half a million British volunteers. This data is typically shared for health-related research deemed to be in the public interest. However, UK law prohibits parents from selecting embryos based on predicted high IQ, while such practices are permitted in the US, albeit not yet commercially available.
Michael Christensen, Heliospect’s CEO and a former financial markets trader, sees genetic selection as a pathway to a brighter future, declaring, “Everyone can have all the children they want, and they can have children that are basically disease-free, smart, healthy; it’s going to be great.” This statement was made during a video call in November 2023, which an undercover researcher from Hope Not Hate recorded.
The company’s employees detailed how couples could use “polygenic scoring” to rank embryos based on “IQ and the other naughty traits that everybody wants,” such as sex, height, and the risk of various health conditions.
Ethical Concerns and Regulatory Scrutiny
Leading geneticists and bioethicists have raised alarms about the ethical ramifications of such technology. Dagan Wells, a professor of reproductive genetics at the University of Oxford, questioned whether society is ready for such a test, stating, “Is this a test too far? Do we really want it?” He emphasized that this is a debate the public has not had the chance to fully engage in.Furthermore, the involvement of Jonathan Anomaly, a controversial figure known for promoting “liberal eugenics,” has fueled concerns. Anomaly asserts that parents should be free to utilize technology to enhance their children’s prospects. However, this stance has been criticized for potentially perpetuating harmful ideologies linked to scientific racism.
The launch of Heliospect’s service has prompted calls for a re-evaluation of the ethical criteria used in granting access to UK Biobank data. Prof. Hank Greely, a bioethicist at Stanford University, suggested that the UK government needs to impose new restrictions.
The discussion surrounding the genetic basis of intelligence and the potential for embryo screening to influence IQ is both complex and controversial. Recent advancements in genetic research have led to a better understanding of how intelligence may be inherited, yet significant challenges remain in accurately determining the precise contributions of specific genes.
How much is intelligence based on genetics?
While there is a general consensus among scientists that intelligence has a hereditary component, the genetic underpinnings are influenced by thousands of genes, each contributing only a small effect. The development of large genetic databases, like the UK Biobank, has facilitated the identification of these genetic factors. Researchers can analyze DNA samples to find correlations between genetic markers and traits such as educational attainment, which is sometimes used as a proxy for IQ.
Limitations and Ethical Considerations
The claims of IQ gains from embryo screening are further complicated by several factors. For instance, the concept of polygenic scores, which aggregates genetic contributions to traits, is based on probabilities and does not guarantee outcomes. Moreover, external factors such as access to education and a supportive family environment play significant roles in determining a child’s intelligence, potentially overshadowing genetic influences.
The actual effectiveness of these screening methods is questionable, as they assume that a larger number of embryos would result in viable pregnancies. However, statistics indicate that the success rates of live births from IVF vary widely, particularly with age. This raises concerns about the feasibility of the screening process, as many couples may not have enough viable embryos to choose from.
The idea of screening for intelligence also raises ethical questions about social stratification. Critics fear that such practices could lead to a society divided along genetic lines, reminiscent of the dystopian themes explored in the film Gattaca, where genetically engineered individuals hold advantages over those conceived naturally.
Additionally, the analogy to animal breeding practices is contentious. While proponents argue that selective breeding can lead to desirable traits, history has shown that unintended consequences can arise, as demonstrated by the case of “superchickens” that were bred for productivity but ended up exhibiting aggressive behaviors. This underscores the unpredictability of genetic selection in complex traits like intelligence.
As Heliospect Genomics prepares for a public launch, its operations remain shrouded in controversy. The company claims it adheres to all relevant laws and regulations, and emphasizes that it is committed to public education and informed discussions about the technology. However, the potential consequences of embryo screening based on genetic predictions are profound, highlighting the urgent need for societal dialogue on the ethical dimensions of genetic enhancement.
The emergence of such technologies poses challenging questions about our understanding of genetics, inequality, and the very essence of humanity. As Heliospect claims to have already analyzed embryos for several couples, the implications of this practice will likely continue to provoke debate and scrutiny.