US Startup Charging Couples To 'Screen Embryos For IQ' 130
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: A US startup company is offering to help wealthy couples screen their embryos for IQ using controversial technology that raises questions about the ethics of genetic enhancement. The company, Heliospect Genomics, has worked with more than a dozen couples undergoing IVF, according to undercover video footage. The recordings show the company marketing its services at up to $50,000 for clients seeking to test 100 embryos, and claiming to have helped some parents select future children based on genetic predictions of intelligence. Managers boasted their methods could produce a gain of more than six IQ points. [...]
The footage appears to show experimental genetic selection techniques being advertised to prospective parents. A Heliospect employee, who has been helping the company recruit clients, outlined how couples could rank up to 100 embryos based on "IQ and the other naughty traits that everybody wants," including sex, height, risk of obesity and risk of mental illness. The startup says its prediction tools were built using data provided by UK Biobank, a taxpayer-funded store of genetic material donated by half a million British volunteers, which aims to only share data for projects that are "in the public interest".
Selecting embryos on the basis of predicted high IQ is not permitted under UK law. While it is legal in the US, where embryology is more loosely regulated, IQ screening is not yet commercially available there. Asked for comment, managers at Heliospect said the company, which is incorporated in the US, operated within all applicable law and regulations. They said Heliospect was in "stealth mode" before a planned public launch and was still developing its service. They added that clients who screened fewer embryos were charged about $4,000, and that pricing on launch would be in line with competitors. Leading geneticists and bioethicists said the project raised a host of moral and medical issues.
The footage appears to show experimental genetic selection techniques being advertised to prospective parents. A Heliospect employee, who has been helping the company recruit clients, outlined how couples could rank up to 100 embryos based on "IQ and the other naughty traits that everybody wants," including sex, height, risk of obesity and risk of mental illness. The startup says its prediction tools were built using data provided by UK Biobank, a taxpayer-funded store of genetic material donated by half a million British volunteers, which aims to only share data for projects that are "in the public interest".
Selecting embryos on the basis of predicted high IQ is not permitted under UK law. While it is legal in the US, where embryology is more loosely regulated, IQ screening is not yet commercially available there. Asked for comment, managers at Heliospect said the company, which is incorporated in the US, operated within all applicable law and regulations. They said Heliospect was in "stealth mode" before a planned public launch and was still developing its service. They added that clients who screened fewer embryos were charged about $4,000, and that pricing on launch would be in line with competitors. Leading geneticists and bioethicists said the project raised a host of moral and medical issues.
IVF may not be legal in the US after the 2024 elec (Score:2, Insightful)
The GOP is calling for the end of IVF.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
IVF is hugely popular on both sides of the asile, I don't think it's going anywhere
Right to reproduce with genetic counseling? (Score:2)
What is this GOP you are talking about? Is that why you got the Funny moderation?
Actually I think the moderation was intended to censor your comment, even though it was a rather weak FP. However my proposed Subject is something of a poison pill and unlikely to lead to any sort of constructive discussion... Too many childless cat boys on Slashdot?
(Yeah, I'm often going for Funny mods, but these jokes are not the droids you are looking for...)
Re:IVF may not be legal in the US after the 2024 e (Score:5, Informative)
Did you see what the State of Alabama did? They literally banned IVF.
Re: (Score:1)
GOP split on that and Trump supports it
Re: (Score:1)
Re:IVF may not be legal in the US after the 2024 e (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
1) It isn't a Federal power or concern.
2) States will generally do what their citizen voters want.
3) Your "State by State" implication is exactly how things are generally supposed to work. That is how Federalism under the Constitution of the United States was designed.
Re: (Score:2)
The US needs a n
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have an historical perspective, you have a philosophical lens through which you view history. That is, you have an internal narrative you are certain is true, and you are picking through the past, twisting its pieces together until it fits the story you want to tell. Statements such as "federation is great, but it didn't account for the industrial revolution" is an example of the kind of revisionist narrative I'm talking about.
The problem with this approach is it rather quickly misunderstands the
It is healthy to doubt all public figures. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, now you lefties are fucking mind-readers....
Mind readers implies blindly guessing the future, not predicting what will happen based on countless past events.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:IVF may not be legal in the US after the 2024 e (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>"They literally banned IVF."
No, they literally did no such thing. It was NEVER banned, a court was allowing people to sue IVF clinics over wrongful deaths for accidental loss/destruction of embryos. And the conservative legislators immediately remediated that:
https://www.al.com/news/2024/0... [al.com]
"Alabama lawmakers moved quickly to approve legislation on Wednesday that protects in vitro fertilization clinics from lawsuits"
"Republican lawmakers sponsored both measures in a state where politics are dominated
IVF industry money - high earning/educated women (Score:2)
USA Federal government - Health and Human Services number - https://www.hhs.gov/about/news... [hhs.gov]
Conjecture:
- It's the money
- It's building a new government bureaucracy around government programs spending tens of billions on IVF treatments mainly for the highest educated, highest earning women. 2021 numbers are form 6.2 billion to 12.4 billion per year
- It's about changing laws to force this cost also onto all non-governmental insurance companies. This is more significant in that the single men plus women past
Need health insurance cost based on risk (Score:2)
It's one large discussion point why health insurance should be based on risk like life, auto and property insurance and not be equally prices for all persons in a given insurance plan.
The equal pricing favors and subsidizes those people, women wanting to get pregnant, especially older, highest educated women; posing the highest cost to a pool of insured people.
It's highest educated, highest earning women wanting yet another subsidy paid for the lower earning women, older women, and all single men.
Re: IVF may not be legal in the US after the 2024 (Score:2)
Mistake (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Mistake (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Mistake (Score:4, Funny)
Just gift them money. It may not buy happiness, but it definitely removes a lot of sources of unhappiness.
Re: (Score:2)
But it generally creates entitled people who believe their money makes them "better" than everyone else. The world does not need more rich a**holes.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want happy kids, just gift them below-average IQ, good strength and an interest in sports and beer.
No, they'll be upset that the entire world is going woke and that they can't drink Bud Lite because they saw a trans person this one time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Mistake (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or they might get downmodded on Slashdot. Oh no!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It is more like playing with fire. For every thing one might find a positive correlation there could be numerous negative other traits not considered.
Genuinely wise people are those that as they learn more, they learn that they know a lot less then they thought.
This is a very dangerous path, and should likely be illegal. It is one thing to screen for major disease. It is quite another to try and make designer babies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here comes.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here comes.. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the world hasn't had more sociopathic leaders all throughout human history. I'm sure everybody here will have a really hard time coming up with names. /s
If "the age of sociopaths" has started, it started a long fucking time ago.
Re: (Score:1)
Isn't Musk trying to crank out mass clones of himself?
The Troll Army.
Re: Here comes.. (Score:2)
I could raise IQ by more than 6 points. (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't give the young'un a smartphone or tablet and keep 'em TF away from Fox "News" and the like.
Honestly if you really want more intelligent kids (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course the people who cut WIC and Medicare are also going to campaign on tough on crime bullshit so I guess they need it to create a new generation of petty criminals for them to win elections with...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oops
https://nypost.com/2024/10/16/... [nypost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Your other claim about WIC funding being cut is false. There is lower spending, but that'
Re: (Score:2)
A truer post I have not seen in ages. I wish I could mod parent up.
Further, if you want intelligent/successful/happy kids: keep them away far away from "social media", buy them good books, and regularly have conversations, play, and praise for them. Figure out their strengths and encourage them. Set realistic goals for them, and find activities that grow their strengths. And please teach them responsibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus that's the worst argument I've ever heard (Score:2)
I cannot even imagine The level of narcissistic privilege that goes into a comment like what you just made.
I don't think you actually believe anything you wrote I think you just really really don't want to give hungry children food and you're desperately trying to come up with a reason to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Wtf...Dude...you yourself are proof positive that poor people basically don't starve in this country, indeed they often have the opposite problem.
When it does happen, it's typically due to food deserts, and you yourself brush off, excuse, and in many respects condone the exact behavior that causes them in the first place.
Re: Honestly if you really want more intelligent k (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Probably because it only makes any sense to do that in the city. Cities could do that on their own if they really wanted to. Doing that in rural areas is somewhere between boneheaded and pointless.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Honestly if you really want more intelligent (Score:2)
And they make up less than 3% of the landmass. What are you proposing exactly, a train that has multiple stops in places hardly anybody is interested in going? Talk about going from one unsustainable extreme to another.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd venture a guess that parents who are paying to have their potential offspring Gattaca'd probably earn too much to qualify for government assistance benefits. Even if this ends up being snake oil, it might still appear to work since kids generally do end up more successful when parents have the means to give them every advantage money can buy.
Yeah, I do realize sometimes children of the wealthy turn out to be layabouts despite having every opportunity handed to them. As the old saying goes, you can lea
Re: Honestly if you really want more intelligent k (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, seriously keep them TF away from
I really need to change my sig to "Slashdot: The Internet Depression Generator."
Re: I could raise IQ by more than 6 points. (Score:2)
Mod parent up.
There's a sucker born every minute (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Well you're here aren't you? Your wish has already come true.
Not technically new, only "socially accepted" new (Score:2)
Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGS) is available for years, and the potential to use the mutations that are known linked to intelligence is done for years as well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] DNA sequencing in adults already provide those (supposed) indications on intelligence. It's just very controversial to select embryos based on such criteria, so until now it wasn't presented to parents that way. Maybe regulations evolved (or devolved) such that now the implantation criteria are not anymore con
Parents: No Comment (Score:3)
The Bashirs were unavailable for comment.
Re:Parents: No Comment (Score:4, Funny)
All that hullabaloo, and it turns out Julian's IQ was only 6 points higher than Miles'...
Re:Parents: No Comment (Score:4, Funny)
All that hullabaloo, and it turns out Julian's IQ was only 6 points higher than Miles'...
But there you are counting in TNG points, which are 10x higher than TOS points. His mind was warped a lot more than if that number used the old warp scales. Now if you'll excuse me I need to go invert the phase shift of my type L phase discriminating amplifier. And polish my lightsabre.
Snake Oil in the Digital Era (Score:2)
I'm surprised they're not claiming to use " AI " to determine an unborn's IQ score :|
I find this quote to be more and more relevant as time goes on:
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know. - Ernest Hemingway
23andMe (Score:1)
Barbie Lobotomat Playset (Score:2)
These screened kids are so smart... (Score:2)
I bet they could complete this puzzle:
A ____ and his money are soon ________.
It's too bad they can't figure it out in time to save their gullible parents $50K, though.
I for one welcome our GATTACA future (Score:2)
Sounds like a scam (Score:2)
Probably is one...
Catch 23 (Score:2)
Waste of money, even if it worked.
Whoever buys it is just plain stoopid for believing it.
So, can't be smart enough to have smart genes to pass on to your kids.
So, if you insist, fill the forms, write the check, do all the p's & q's, then, at the last moment just before you click "Send" or drop it in the mailbox, or whatever, - STOP - you have your answer.
Now tear up the check and buy a condom.
(If you haven't seen or read Joseph Heller's "Catch 22", it is about army fliers in Italy during WWII. They all
Sounds like an upsell at an engagement ring store. (Score:2)
If you sell it, they will come... (Score:2)
And I'm sure all paperwork has lots of protection for the company and weasel language to blunt any protections like lawsuits.
Meaning since we can't force people to be honest when talking (in person, during ads, even when recorded and announced to the world), maybe we should try to when they take someone else's money for a claimed purpose? Should companies be required to reliably prove they do what they get paid for?
That's easy (Score:2)
Have several tiers of service you offer. The for every extra 5k the parents are willing to spend, knock 5 points off the kid's predicted IQ.
Fools and their money... (Score:3)
Honestly. All of those are very complicated factors that will vary greatly given the environment. I mean just on the gene side, you have epigenetics effects, environmental impact on gene expression. Say nothing of just the plain environmental impacts.
No to mention that IQ isn't that great of predictor of overall success compared to emotional and social skills combined with the ability to practice and delay gratification.
But, hey, go on with your neo-eugenic dog whistles there, random bio-startup company.
Re: (Score:2)
Source code to their algorithm released (Score:2)
If (couple.paid_for_this_service):
baby.IQ=low
How can the demonstrate effeciveness (Score:2)
Unless the company is going to do a lot of embryo selection and double-blind tests (which would have all sorts of ethical issues) wait say 15 years and see how the children do, I don't see any way for the company to demonstrate the ef
IVF is evil (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Came here to see an anti-abortionist losing their shit over this because they think that an egg with a sperm in it is a person, can now leave satisfied :-)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm making popcorn to watch the mental gymnastics required to continue to say it's even.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: IVF is evil (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In Catholic teaching, relying solely on Scripture overlooks the inseparable role of Sacred Tradition in understanding God’s revelation. Jesus established the Church and entrusted the apostles to pass down His teachings, both orally and in written form. This oral Tradition helped early Christians discern the canon of Scripture and interpret its meanings. Key passages, such as Paul’s instruction in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 to “hold fast to the traditions” taught by word or letter, show tha
Standard Deviation (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on the test and the scoring system used. It varies. Which is why I said "around".
Fools & their money... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately Ayn Rand was as wrong about this as she was about most everything else, rich people usually have large passive income streams and can get away with doing incredibly stupid things with their money throughout their entire lives, and then pass those income streams onto their heirs.