By ByteBot
MIT Technology Review just named embryo scoring a “breakthrough technology of 2026.” The same month, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine declared it “not ready for clinical practice.” Over 100 US fertility clinics are charging up to $50,000 to let parents select embryos based on predicted IQ, height, and disease risk. While Peter Thiel and Elon Musk fund startups promising “genetic optimization,” medical professionals warn we’re building a genetic caste system.
Unlike failed startups, the consequences here are permanent and heritable.
What’s Actually Happening
Polygenic embryo screening—PGT-P—analyzes IVF embryos’ DNA to predict everything from cancer risk to intelligence. Companies calculate “polygenic risk scores” by aggregating hundreds of genetic variants into a single number. Parents get what amounts to a genetic menu for their future children.
The technology has been commercially available since 2019, but 2025 brought something new: startups openly advertising intelligence screening. Herasight charges up to $50,000 to test 100 embryos. Nucleus Genomics, backed by Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund with $36 million, markets “genetic optimization software.” Orchid, founded by former Thiel fellow Noor Siddiqui, sequences embryos for $2,500 each.
The problem medical professionals keep emphasizing: these are probabilities, not guarantees. Polygenic scores capture only part of the genetic component. They can’t account for environmental factors like nutrition, education, or stress.
The Medical Establishment Says Stop
The irony is stark. MIT names embryo scoring a breakthrough on January 12, 2026. Six weeks earlier, ASRM published a report concluding this technology “should not be offered as a reproductive service at this time.”
The European Society of Human Genomics called PGT-P “clinically unproven and unethical” in 2021. Surveys show 82% of genetic counselors and reproductive specialists would not recommend it to patients. Yet 100+ clinics offer it anyway because market demand trumps medical consensus.
This is Silicon Valley’s “move fast” culture colliding with human reproduction. The tech industry sees a breakthrough. The medical establishment sees premature commercialization. One side optimizes cloud infrastructure. The other recognizes you can’t roll back a human being.
Follow the Money
Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund invested $36 million in Nucleus Genomics. Vitalik Buterin backed Orchid with $16.5 million. Across fertility tech, investors poured over $800 million in 2022 alone.
The rationale is pure Thiel: he considers death “the most important problem facing humanity.” If you can’t defeat aging yet, select the healthiest embryos as a longevity investment. Elon Musk frames embryo screening as a “genetic trust fund.”
But when genetic enhancement costs $50,000—57% of the average American’s annual income—you’re not democratizing access. Philosopher Peter Singer warns the “wealthy will embed their advantages in the genes of their offspring.”
Katie Hasson from the Center for Genetics and Society is blunt: this “reinforces the belief that inequality comes from biology rather than social causes.” The same people who created digital divides now want to create biological divides that pass to the next generation.
The Eugenics Question
Scholars debate whether this is “new eugenics” or fundamentally different because it’s consumer choice rather than state coercion. Historical eugenics sterilized 60,000 Americans through government mandates. This version is market-based.
But when only wealthy couples can afford it, how free is that choice? The UK prohibits embryo selection based on predicted intelligence. The US has zero regulations.
The disability rights critique is harder to dismiss: screening embryos for traits inevitably devalues people who wouldn’t have been “selected.” And when companies attack each other for “scientific malpractice” over accuracy claims, we’re watching an unregulated market experiment on human reproduction.
Does It Even Work?
The science doesn’t support the commercial claims. When chromosomal testing (PGT-A) increased sharply from 2014-2017, live birth rates didn’t improve. One study found 77% live birth rates with testing versus 81.8% without. The testing group did worse.
Polygenic predictions for complex traits are even less reliable than chromosomal tests. Class action lawsuits have been filed for misleading accuracy claims.
The fundamental limitation: complex traits emerge from gene-environment interactions. You can calculate perfect polygenic scores and still can’t predict whether your child will be brilliant or kind. Nature and nurture both matter, despite Silicon Valley’s genetic determinism.
What Happens Next
The pattern is familiar to anyone watching AI development. Technology moves faster than governance. Industry optimism outpaces scientific consensus. Equity concerns get dismissed as resistance to progress.
The difference is permanence. When AI tools fail, we patch them. When genetic selection fails, we’ve made irreversible decisions about which humans get to exist and with what advantages.
We got here because the US has no regulations on embryo selection, deep-pocketed investors see a market, and parents want the best for their children. Medical professionals say slow down. Ethics boards say stop. The market says full speed ahead.
Given how that’s worked out for social media and AI, maybe this time we should listen to the doctors.
