Jonathan Anomaly
239 posts
@JonathanAnomaly
https://t.co/kd5ubQYRxj
The paper raises concerns about subjecting fertile patients to "medically unnecessary IVF." This framing overstates the risk. HFEA reported fewer than 0.1% of cycles resulting in severe or critical OHSS in 2023/24, and more than 99% of UK fertility cycles in 2024/25 had no reported incident. For families with serious heritable disease risk, elective IVF for embryo screening is a rational medical decision, not casual medicalization.
Yale has changed its mission statement, rolling back the language that was adopted in 2016
Many of Herasight’s first customers were Bay Area rationalists. The company’s promise to use data gleaned from embryo genomes to predict the future of a child-to-be appealed to IQ-obsessed quants who were already thinking about their “reproductive health stack” of supplements and peptides. “It’s hard not to love this technology,” called polygenic screening, writes Scott Alexander, the author of the rationalist blog Astral Codex Ten. Peter Thiel, Alexis Ohanian, and Coinbase’s Brian Armstrong have all invested in companies that provide polygenic embryo screening. Now this innovation seems poised to breach Silicon Valley containment. In the fall, CBS ran two separate specials on polygenic screening, one on Herasight and one on Nucleus Genomics. And in November, Nucleus ran a high-profile series of ads in the New York subway system. “IQ IS 50% GENETIC” one read. In the Broadway–Lafayette Street station, commuters were confronted by banners with the tagline “HAVE YOUR BEST BABY.” The sales pitch is appealingly straightforward: Choose one embryo and gain four inches in height; choose another and add nine IQ points. In reality, behind each number is a series of nesting uncertainties inherent in prenatal testing, in how genetic risk is calculated, and in the IVF process itself, which, taken together, makes this technology deeply unreliable. “How many lawsuits are going to happen,” one clinician wondered, “because you’ve supposedly chosen an embryo that’s going to be tall, beautiful, and smart, and they’re short, squat, thick, and a little dull?” Christopher Cox reports on the shaky science behind polygenic embryo screening and the prospective clients who don’t seem to mind: nymag.visitlink.me/Hn3i66
That quote was (unsurprisingly) taken out of context btw. I explained that we can know BRCA mutations are associated with breast cancer and know that testing embryos for BRCA works without needing to wait half a century after babies are born, and that a similar point applies to some polygenic scores (eg we already know some of the causal variants associated with T1D)
It's very telling that the embryo selection companies are not interested in rigorous prospective validation -- the milestone all clinical companies strive for and all sketchy wellness cures avoid like the plague.
Many of Herasight’s first customers were Bay Area rationalists. The company’s promise to use data gleaned from embryo genomes to predict the future of a child-to-be appealed to IQ-obsessed quants who were already thinking about their “reproductive health stack” of supplements and peptides. “It’s hard not to love this technology,” called polygenic screening, writes Scott Alexander, the author of the rationalist blog Astral Codex Ten. Peter Thiel, Alexis Ohanian, and Coinbase’s Brian Armstrong have all invested in companies that provide polygenic embryo screening. Now this innovation seems poised to breach Silicon Valley containment. In the fall, CBS ran two separate specials on polygenic screening, one on Herasight and one on Nucleus Genomics. And in November, Nucleus ran a high-profile series of ads in the New York subway system. “IQ IS 50% GENETIC” one read. In the Broadway–Lafayette Street station, commuters were confronted by banners with the tagline “HAVE YOUR BEST BABY.” The sales pitch is appealingly straightforward: Choose one embryo and gain four inches in height; choose another and add nine IQ points. In reality, behind each number is a series of nesting uncertainties inherent in prenatal testing, in how genetic risk is calculated, and in the IVF process itself, which, taken together, makes this technology deeply unreliable. “How many lawsuits are going to happen,” one clinician wondered, “because you’ve supposedly chosen an embryo that’s going to be tall, beautiful, and smart, and they’re short, squat, thick, and a little dull?” Christopher Cox reports on the shaky science behind polygenic embryo screening and the prospective clients who don’t seem to mind: nymag.visitlink.me/Hn3i66
