Jonathan Anomaly

Jonathan is great and this is a serious paper but “correlation of .5 with IQ” is doing a lot of work. read this during my lunch just now: raw R² is 16.4% against a brief fluid intelligence screen, and the .5 only appears after reliability-correcting to a latent variable. this means ur looking at 84% of variance unexplained Within-family ie the relevant scenario for EMBRYO selection, is even less. “Not fake” and “can predict an embryo’s IQ” are very different claims; there is a clear relationship, but the relationship is complex and predicting IQ is still an extremely loose claim. i would be surprised if this was possible, as a biologist who sits in the cell and molecular biology side of this

Predicting an embryo’s IQ is fake science.

Today we’re announcing an algorithmic breakthrough. Herasight’s ImputePGTA algorithm has enabled couples around the world to access polygenic embryo testing from routine IVF data (PGT-A). Now it yields substantially higher accuracy, especially for underrepresented ancestries

1/ Women scheduled surgery after being told they had rare BRCA1 variants. The genetic test was wrong. University of Exeter analyzed 50,000 samples to find out how often this happens. The results should worry anyone who's downloaded their 23andMe raw data.

SF dinner for JPM biotech conference - conversation turns to embryo selection and polygenic scores. These are someone's actual embryos.

It’s going to be sadly hilarious when strivers try breeding highly polygenic traits like intelligence in their children, only to discover that as with most such coarse selection over complex traits (e.g. dogs), you get an accompanying basket of pathologies as well.