In the UK, couples undergoing IVF are taking advantage of a loophole in the law to get insight into their embryos' genetic makeup. This has raised questions about polygenic embryo screening, or PGT-P, which claims to predict not only serious health conditions but also traits like intelligence and height.
Currently, fertility clinics can perform tests on embryos that focus on specific health concerns, such as Huntington's disease, cystic fibrosis, and sickle-cell anemia. However, the UK law restricts these screenings to a list of about 1,700 single-gene disorders. The grey area where PGT-P comes in is rooted in the fact that genetic sequencing has become more efficient and affordable.
The concern arises from how embryos are being tested for genetic conditions. Clinics typically screen for aneuploidy by generating low-resolution genome sequences for each embryo, which isn't shared with IVF clinics. However, patients have the right to access their medical data under GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018, allowing them to get insights into their embryos' genetics.
This data reveals the sex of an embryo and, when combined with high-quality genome sequences of parents, can generate predictions on mental and physical traits. Several US companies offer commercial health and IQ prediction services.
So, what exactly is PGT-P? Traits like height and intelligence are known to have a genetic component that spreads across thousands of genes interacting in complex ways. Scientists have developed algorithms using vast genetic databases to give predictive scores for these traits, which are probabilistic – having high predicted risk doesn't guarantee the condition.
Advocates argue that parents can make informed decisions with this technology, but others claim that the accuracy of predictions is untested when it comes to embryo selection and isn't justified on health grounds. Critics point out that polygenic scores are typically crude and only capture a fraction of the heritable component for complex traits like IQ.
Geneticists like Prof Frances Flinter warn about the premature adoption of inadequately validated tests, saying that PGT-P "represents a major concern." As the technology continues to evolve, it's essential to weigh the benefits against the potential risks and ensure that these predictions are used responsibly.
Currently, fertility clinics can perform tests on embryos that focus on specific health concerns, such as Huntington's disease, cystic fibrosis, and sickle-cell anemia. However, the UK law restricts these screenings to a list of about 1,700 single-gene disorders. The grey area where PGT-P comes in is rooted in the fact that genetic sequencing has become more efficient and affordable.
The concern arises from how embryos are being tested for genetic conditions. Clinics typically screen for aneuploidy by generating low-resolution genome sequences for each embryo, which isn't shared with IVF clinics. However, patients have the right to access their medical data under GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018, allowing them to get insights into their embryos' genetics.
This data reveals the sex of an embryo and, when combined with high-quality genome sequences of parents, can generate predictions on mental and physical traits. Several US companies offer commercial health and IQ prediction services.
So, what exactly is PGT-P? Traits like height and intelligence are known to have a genetic component that spreads across thousands of genes interacting in complex ways. Scientists have developed algorithms using vast genetic databases to give predictive scores for these traits, which are probabilistic – having high predicted risk doesn't guarantee the condition.
Advocates argue that parents can make informed decisions with this technology, but others claim that the accuracy of predictions is untested when it comes to embryo selection and isn't justified on health grounds. Critics point out that polygenic scores are typically crude and only capture a fraction of the heritable component for complex traits like IQ.
Geneticists like Prof Frances Flinter warn about the premature adoption of inadequately validated tests, saying that PGT-P "represents a major concern." As the technology continues to evolve, it's essential to weigh the benefits against the potential risks and ensure that these predictions are used responsibly.
. So like, couples in the UK can use IVF but also check out their embryos' genes to predict stuff about them? Like, height and smarts? Isn't that a bit too much info? 
I mean, I get it if you wanna know if your kid might have some health problems, but what's with predicting traits like being tall or smart? 
It sounds kinda sketchy to me. And isn't there already enough anxiety around fertility and stuff? Don't need any more pressure on top of it all 
But at the same time, it's legit scary when you think about how accurate these predictions are going to be. I'm all for parents having more info, but shouldn't they just be focusing on getting healthy babies first? 
And what's with the grey area in the law - can't we just have clear rules around this stuff? It feels like tech companies are gonna take advantage of people's desire for more info and not deliver on those promises. 
BUT IS IT REALLY ACCURATE?? I MEAN, WE KNOW GENETICS ARE COMPLEX AND IT'S NOT JUST ONE GENE THAT DETERMINES THESE TRAITS. PLUS, SOME OF THE COMPANIES OFFERING THESE SERVICES ARE DOING IT WITH ALGORITHMS THAT ARE STILL BEING DEVELOPED 
. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I GET WHY PARENTS WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THEIR EMBRYOS AND MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS 
.
and then BAM! Predicts ur kid will be 5'10" or a genius 
. But honestly wut is the science behind it all? 
I'm low-key worried about the potential consequences of making decisions based on these untested predictions 
. We need to slow down and make sure we r using this tech responsibly 
.
this is so scary for me... thinking about all those embryos being screened like they're just numbers or predictions ... what if we mess up? 
. We need to make sure we're not just lookin at a bunch of numbers and makin assumptions about somethin that might not even happen. Prof Frances Flinter's concerns are spot on - we gotta be careful how we use this tech. And what about the ethics of it all? Are we prepared for the consequences if these predictions start gettin made? 
but the UK law is all like "hold up, we gotta stick to single-gene disorders" 
.
". but like, scientists are all worried 'cause they're not sure how accurate these predictions really are 
. its a big deal cuz genetic traits are super complex and hard to predict 
, but honestly, I'm not convinced they're more than just a rough estimate 
. The data protection laws are also on my mind – who's to say the clinics aren't sharing this info with third parties? 
. Are these predictions really worth the risks, or are they just playing with fire 
?
. But isn't that just a bunch of numbers thrown around? I don't get how scientists are sure these predictions won't be wrong... it's all just probabilities, right? 
we already have enough pressure on kids to perform well in school 
and then add this? 
.
.
It's like, yeah, I get that parents wanna make informed decisions, but do we really need to know if our kid's gonna be 5'10" with a 99% probability? 
That just seems like a recipe for disappointment.
We're already talking about predicting traits like height and intelligence – what's next? Personality disorders? It's like we're playing God here.
I get that parents want to make informed decisions, but do we really need to know if our kid's gonna be 5'2" or a genius at math?! 
And don't even get me started on the whole 'probabilistic predictions' thing - it's like, what even is that?! 
Do we really want to gamble with our kids' futures based on some untested algorithm?