What Embryo Selection Means for Humanity - Dr Jonathan Anomaly

What Embryo Selection Is and Isn't

Dr. Anomaly begins by clarifying a fundamental misconception: embryo selection is not gene editing. Rather than altering genes, it involves acquiring detailed genetic information about embryos already created through IVF and selecting those with the "best" genetic prospects. These prospects include the likelihood of developing certain diseases and even complex traits such as intelligence or predisposition to psychiatric conditions. This distinction is crucial, as public skepticism often arises because people confuse embryo selection with genetic manipulation.

Embryo selection builds on practices long established in IVF clinics, where embryos are typically assessed morphologically to estimate viability. What's new is the use of polygenic risk scores derived from large genomic datasets to predict a wide range of probabilistic health and trait outcomes. The technology empowers parents to make informed choices, but it also raises questions about the limits and consequences of such choices. Can we really predict future traits with confidence? And what moral responsibility accompanies this knowledge?

Eugenics and Modern Taboos

A major barrier to public acceptance of embryo selection stems from the shadow of 20th-century eugenics programs, particularly in Nazi Germany, where genetic "selection" was coerced and aimed at ranking human worth. Dr. Anomaly explains that post-World War II western society has developed deep taboos around the application of genetic knowledge to human traits—especially mental traits like intelligence and psychiatric disorders.

Intriguingly, these taboos are not universal. In some Asian societies, for instance, screening for a wider variety of traits, including intelligence, enjoys similar levels of acceptance to disease screening. The cultural aversion in much of the West incorporates a fear that evaluating mental traits inherently involves moral judgments about a person's value or worth. But should we separate moral worth from biological risks and potentials? Dr. Anomaly argues that such fears, while understandable, may be unnecessary roadblocks to using genetics as a tool for reducing suffering.

Disease Risk Versus Selecting for Positive Traits

The conversation highlights a marked difference in public opinion: while a majority supports screening embryos to reduce disease risks, fewer are comfortable selecting for positive traits such as intelligence. Yet, in places like Singapore, this distinction blurs, with equal support for both.

Dr. Anomaly explores why this discrepancy exists. Selecting against disease is seen as reducing harm, a morally uncontroversial goal. Selecting for enhanced traits feels more like "designing" a child and ventures into uncertain ethical terrain. However, from a genetic perspective, traits like intelligence and mental health risk are highly intertwined and can be approached similarly from a polygenic standpoint. Thus, the distinction is often cultural rather than scientific—and this raises ethical challenges around where to draw the line, if at all.

The Fear of Coercive Eugenics

The podcast navigates the persistent fear of a "slippery slope" leading to coercive eugenics—a dystopian scenario in which governments or societies mandate genetic selection policies. Dr. Anomaly is skeptical of coercion happening naturally in democratic societies, emphasizing the importance of individual informed choice with minimal gatekeeper interference.

He further acknowledges a tension between government involvement to ensure equitable access and respect for individual freedoms. Should embryo selection be subsidized by public funds to prevent widening genetic inequalities? Who bears the cost, especially when some citizens may oppose the technology on ethical or religious grounds? These difficult trade-offs exemplify the interplay between social justice considerations and respect for pluralistic values.

The Democratization of Technology

Inevitably, novel technologies risk exacerbating inequalities. One worry is the rise of genetic stratification: if only the wealthy can afford embryo selection, will society witness increased hereditary disparities in intelligence, health, or other traits?

Dr. Anomaly acknowledges this concern but tempers it by noting that natural assortative mating already creates genetic clustering by socioeconomic status. Also, embryo selection effects on traits like IQ or height are modest—typically a few points or inches—not a dramatic leap. Moreover, his company's approach democratizes access by enabling parents to extract extensive genetic information from routine tests already available during IVF, thus bypassing restrictive clinic gatekeeping. This decentralization blurs the line between innovation exclusivity and broader public availability.

The Science Behind Polygenic Scores

A crucial focus of the discussion is scientific rigor. Polygenic risk scores undergird embryo selection predictions, but not all companies offering them are reliable. Dr. Anomaly stresses the importance of transparency: customers should demand to see how predictive scores are derived and validated—including how well they work across diverse ancestries.

Validation relies heavily on "within-family" studies comparing siblings' DNA and traits, since embryos are genetic siblings before birth. Large biobanks like the UK Biobank provide genotype and phenotype datasets essential to these analyses. However, polygenic scores generally perform best in populations well represented in these datasets—predominantly Europeans—posing challenges for more genetically diverse groups. The field continues improving methods to close these gaps.

Ethical Dimensions

Delving into philosophical waters, the conversation addresses the vexing issue of personhood in embryo selection decisions. If selecting one embryo over another means a different child will be born, can one say anyone is genuinely "harmed" or "benefited" by the choice? This is the famous Nonidentity Problem in ethics.

Dr. Anomaly draws on Derek Parfit's arguments: the person who exists cannot claim to have been wronged by their not having been a different, potentially "better" individual. Embryo selection doesn't harm or benefit the same person but determines which person comes into existence. This subtlety reframes moral responsibility but does not absolve parents from ethical reflection—it challenges us to think about what "better" means and the limits of moral judgment in reproduction.

Parental Guilt and Regret

The discussion touches on the potential psychological burden that embryo selection could place on parents. Existing parenting involves complex and often guilt-ridden responsibilities—now magnified by having chosen among embryos with varying risks or potentials. What if the chosen child develops an illness or falls short of expected traits? What happens if a parent regrets not selecting another embryo?

Dr. Anomaly compares this to other technological advances like vaccination: it would be unreasonable to feel guilty for providing later-born children advantages unavailable to older siblings. Nevertheless, he acknowledges that such feelings could be real and challenging to manage, though morally unjustified. A society's success in integrating embryo selection will depend not only on ethics but on offering support around these difficult emotions.

Societal Norms

Norms, more than laws, will be decisive in shaping how embryo selection is adopted and regulated. Dr. Anomaly reflects on the power of social sanction over formal government restrictions, suggesting that companies and communities policing unethical selections (e.g., selecting for psychopathy or malevolence) could be effective.

Cultural differences loom large: some countries currently embrace genetic screening and embryo selection; others restrict or ban it, often motivated by moral doctrines regarding the embryo or social concerns. The evolving global landscape could create "geo-genetic" disparities, where reproductive choices depend heavily on one's jurisdiction and cultural milieu.

The Complexity of Trait Interactions

A sophisticated scientific insight offered is the phenomenon of pleiotropy, where a single gene influences multiple traits. This could mean that selecting against one undesirable trait might unintentionally increase risks for others. However, Dr. Anomaly's research reveals that pleiotropic effects relevant to human disease and complex traits are mostly positive or neutral, not antagonistic.

This finding suggests that selecting embryos to reduce risks of diseases like depression or diabetes might also confer broad health benefits, easing ethical concerns about unintended consequences. The complexity of genetic correlations underscores the need for a nuanced approach—one weighing probabilistic outcomes rather than simplistic predictions.

The Future Landscape

Looking forward, Dr. Anomaly foresees rapid adoption of polygenic embryo selection in countries like China and Israel, which are already subsidizing IVF to boost birth rates. This will drive innovation, reduce costs, and potentially pressure other countries toward acceptance. However, pockets of resistance from religious and social groups—both right-wing and progressive—may manifest in protests and political debates.

He predicts that as genetic knowledge becomes harder to ignore, the "blank slate" theory that underpinned many modern ideologies will erode, forcing societies to confront uncomfortable truths about heredity, identity, and responsibility. Will our global community harness this technology for health and human flourishing, or will fear and division stymie progress? The answer may depend as much on cultural adaptation as scientific advance.