In Silicon Valley, California, a gene-based embryo selection service aimed at giving birth to "smart babies" is gaining traction. Some executives and entrepreneurs in tech companies pay tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars for services that predict and select embryos based on intelligence during the in vitro fertilization (IVF) process, and they sometimes utilize professional matchmakers to find highly educated and intelligent partners. However, there are concerns that current technology has low accuracy in predicting intelligence and continues to raise significant ethical and social controversies.
According to The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) on the 13th (local time), demand surged in the San Francisco Bay Area following the launch of a service by startups Nucleus Genomics and Herasite that predicts embryo IQ using gene scores. Prices range from $6,000 (approximately 8.3 million won) to as much as $50,000 (approximately 69 million won), and users chose embryos by considering both disease risks and predicted IQ.
Tsvi Benston-Tilson, co-founder of the Berkeley Genome Project, noted, "Smarter humans can make AI safer," suggesting that embryo gene selection could become a long-term strategy to save humanity. Some computer scientists also support increasing the proportion of the population with high intelligence to mitigate existential threats from AI.
◇ "Creating a genius" is impossible... Possibility of side effects
Experts pointed out that current technology can only explain 5% to 10% of the differences in cognitive abilities among people, and the improvement in IQ through embryo selection is, on average, only 3 to 4 points. Shai Karmi, a professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, stated, "It is impossible to make a child a genius." There are also concerns about the potential for unwanted traits, such as autism spectrum disorders, to accompany these selections.
The ethical controversies are also significant. Hank Greely, director of the Stanford Law School and Center for Biomedical Ethics, warned that "gene optimization" centered around the wealthy could exacerbate genetic inequality. There are concerns that a social structure may emerge, where the rich form a genetically superior class while the rest become the lower class. Supporters emphasize that unlike government-mandated eugenics, parents voluntarily make choices, but criticisms follow that it is still difficult to avoid exacerbating social inequality.
◇ Regulatory gaps are leading to expansion... Predictive uncertainty is also a problem
The rapid spread of such services in the U.S. is attributed to regulatory gaps. While many countries, including the United Kingdom, restrict or ban embryo selection using gene scores, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has effectively abandoned oversight. Rather, at the end of 2023, it approved a multi-gene test called "AvertD" that predicts the risk of opioid addiction, lowering the market entry barrier. Experts point out that as a result, American consumers and the children born from these services are becoming "unofficial test subjects."
There is also a significant issue of inconsistency in test results among companies. Even analyzing the same DNA, the probabilities of disease onset vary greatly from company to company, leading to distorted results due to differences in data, number of variations, algorithms, and racial sample biases. Some bioethicists evaluated that "the current gene scores have great scientific uncertainty, and are likely to give parents a greater 'illusion of control' (the feeling of having decision-making power may provide more psychological satisfaction than actual efficacy)," deeming it premature.