US Startup Charging Couples To 'Screen Embryos For IQ'
- Reference: 0175280253
- News link: https://science.slashdot.org/story/24/10/18/2120210/us-startup-charging-couples-to-screen-embryos-for-iq
- Source link:
> A US startup company is offering to help wealthy couples [1]screen their embryos for IQ using controversial technology that raises questions about the ethics of genetic enhancement. The company, [2]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.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/oct/18/us-startup-charging-couples-to-screen-embryos-for-iq
[2] https://heliospectgenomics.com/
Mistake (Score:4, Interesting)
People with high IQs are known to have worse problems with anxiety and depression. Yet it means very little in terms of potential for success in the world. Don't know why parents would want to do that to a kid.
Re: Mistake (Score:3)
If you want happy kids, just gift them below-average IQ, good strength and an interest in sports and beer. Intelligent people may or may not be prone to medical depression but it sure must be depressing living in late-stage capitalism and still working all hours to survive!
Re: (Score:2)
Or they might get downmodded on Slashdot. Oh no!
Re: Mistake (Score:2)
Just gift them money. It may not buy happiness, but it definitely removes a lot of sources of unhappiness.
Re: (Score:2)
Might be easier to select for happiness than intelligence. Or maybe even that rare (according to you) combo of both.
Re: (Score:2)
If those traits could also be isolated to specific genes they could also be select for high IQ individuals who dont express those traits. There may be some genes that increase both, but I think it's fairly obvious that the correlation isn't 100%.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
You clearly have not met an Asian parent.
Re: (Score:2)
Numbers go brrrr! It's like 90s CPU clock speed for meatbags; finding a stat to brag about
Here comes.. (Score:3)
The age of sociopaths, or are we already in it?
Re: (Score:2)
The answer is yes. See the previous post about [1]Sam Altman's Worldcoin rebranding [slashdot.org]. Also Zuckerberg, Musk, Trump, Putin, Xi Jinping, Modi in India, Orban in Hungary, the murderous Mohammad bin Salman in Saudi Arabia, Netanyahu, the entire government of Iran, Hamas, ...
[1] https://slashdot.org/story/24/10/18/0057206/sam-altmans-worldcoin-rebrands-as-world-unveils-next-generation-orb
Re: (Score:1)
Isn't Musk trying to crank out mass clones of himself?
The Troll Army.
I could raise IQ by more than 6 points. (Score:3)
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:4, Insightful)
Cleaner air and water coupled with free school lunches is a better way to do it. Also more assistance to pregnant women. We cut WIC massively and we slashed the Medicaid resources they rely on. We're going to have some pretty major problems in about 15 years because of that.
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)
In propaganda politics you don't even need to create a new set of evil doers. In the real world violent crime statistics are down across the board, but Republican hate mongers are still screaming about crime in racist dog-whistle rhetoric.
Re: (Score:2)
Oops
[1]https://nypost.com/2024/10/16/... [nypost.com]
[1] https://nypost.com/2024/10/16/us-news/fbi-quietly-revised-2022-crime-data-to-show-violent-offenses-rose-rather-than-dropped/
Re: (Score:2)
If the free school lunches are full of HFCS and devoid of any actual nutritional value, they'll probably do more harm than good. The air quality in the U.S. is better now than it was 100 years ago and water quality is generally good as well. There was a previous story about too much fluoride potentially resulting in lower IQ, but the water quality for the average American is also better now than it was 100 years ago.
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: Honestly if you really want more intelligent k (Score:1)
Cleaner air and water, as well as more self-reliant children, could be realized by reducing and even penalizing dependence on single passenger automobiles for every little thing. However neither Ds nor Rs show any interest in this cultural shift. How depressing.
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: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
There's a sucker born every minute (Score:3)
But I wish they'd at least wait for the sucker to be born...
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 [1]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
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preimplantation_genetic_diagnosis#Non-medical_traits
Parents: No Comment (Score:2)
The Bashirs were unavailable for comment.
Re: (Score:3)
All that hullabaloo, and it turns out Julian's IQ was only 6 points higher than Miles'...
Re: (Score:3)
> 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)
The cycle continues
Barbie Lobotomat Playset (Score:2)
"Naughty traits?" How has no one commented on that? I was already expecting this story of 21st-century eugenics to be chiiling, but my hair stood up so fast hearing that that my hat came off. And it's knit! That's fucking Missy Mengele shit.
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)
No really, how else are we to compete with robots? [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_KruQhfvW4
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)
At this point it is probably mostly taking rich people’s money. But we are not that far off before something like this is feasible.
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:2)
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.
Source code to their algorithm released (Score:2)
If (couple.paid_for_this_service):
baby.IQ=low
How can the demonstrate effeciveness (Score:2)
There are lots of genetic correlations with performance on IQ tests, its well known that different cultures score differently. That doesn't mean that the genetics is *causing* the different scores. (nor does it imply the tests are measuring "intelligence" in any useful way).
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)
It's the intentional creation and subsequent destruction of human lives. Layering in dystopian eugenics is just the frosting on this sh-t cake.
Standard Deviation (Score:2)
The standard deviation on most IQ tests (there are more than one) is around 10 points. You literally get later swings in your IQ score from skipping a meal or drinking caffeine. This is just a scam for rich racist idiots who have bought into thoroughly debunked eugenics.
IVF may not be legal in the US after the 2024 elec (Score:2, Funny)
The GOP is calling for the end of IVF.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
Yes, Trump supports IVF.
Re:IVF may not be legal in the US after the 2024 e (Score:4, Insightful)
GOP is split and Trump supports it - until after this election. After that GOP will go state by state and Trump won't care one way or the other unless someone pays him to.
It is healthy to doubt all public figures. (Score:2)
Trump is not special.
Re: (Score:1)
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)
And given that Alabama would seek a murder conviction on the 99 embryo's that did not make the cut, I doubt any wealthy person would be doing this in Alabama. I'm not sure I've not read the TX law carefully, but would not surprise me if TX's Paxton would not come after the couple too. The GOP(Donald really) is getting what they asked for. Life begins at embryo. As the old saying goes, careful what you ask for.
Re: (Score:2, 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:
[1]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
[1] https://www.al.com/news/2024/03/5-things-to-know-about-alabamas-new-ivf-law-what-it-does-and-doesnt-do.html
IVF industry money - high earning/educated women (Score:2)
USA Federal government - Health and Human Services number - [1]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
[1] https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2024/03/13/fact-sheet-in-vitro-fertilization-ivf-use-across-united-states.html
Re: IVF may not be legal in the US after the 2024 (Score:2)
Personhood amendments, that are in the GOP platform, ban IVF by default because you effectively can't do IVF without destroying some embryos.
Re: (Score:2)
But Trump just said the other day that he was "The Father of IVF" in a room full of women. Surely he wouldn't be lying.
Re: (Score:3)
IVF is hugely popular on both sides of the asile, I don't think it's going anywhere