Silicon Valley pushes genetic testing startups amid ethical doubts over designing superbabies

Silicon Valley is increasingly investing in genetic testing startups that promise to help parents "design" their children by assessing polygenic risk scores, despite significant ethical and scientific concerns.

These startups have attracted millions from tech leaders including Anne Wojcicki, Sam Altman, Vitalik Buterin, Elad Gil, and Alexis Ohanian over the past five years. However, the science behind these tests remains controversial. Researchers from University College London analyzed over 900 polygenic risk scores and found that these tests correctly identified only about 11% of individuals who would develop the diseases.

Critics argue that it will take years before the predictive value of these scores is fully understood, raising questions about the reliability and ethics of using such data to "design" offspring. Meanwhile, the U.S. regulatory environment is described as the "Wild West" for genetic testing, allowing these startups to operate with minimal oversight.

One insider noted, "High-powered couples are turning to genetic-testing startups to help ‘design’ their offspring. I decided to take the first steps myself." This trend highlights the growing demand despite the scientific community's skepticism.

The ethical debate centers on the implications of selecting traits and the potential societal impact of creating so-called "superbabies." As the technology advances, the tension between innovation and regulation intensifies, underscoring the need for clearer guidelines and more robust scientific validation.

In summary, while Silicon Valley's enthusiasm fuels rapid growth in genetic testing startups, the scientific community urges caution, emphasizing the current limitations and ethical dilemmas inherent in designing future generations.

Silicon Valley investors are backing genetic testing startups aiming to help parents "design" their children, despite ethical concerns and scientific doubts about the accuracy of polygenic risk scores. Critics warn it may take years to confirm these tests' predictive value, while the U.S. regulatory landscape remains lax.