Heliospect Genomics, a controversial US startup, has recently come under scrutiny for offering a high-cost service that enables affluent couples to screen their IVF embryos for various traits, including intelligence. Reportedly costing about $50,000 to test 100 embryos, this service has raised significant ethical questions amongst experts and has been brought to public attention through undercover footage by the campaign group Hope Not Hate. The footage reveals Heliospect employees promoting their service, suggesting that they have already guided some parents in selecting traits based on genetic predictions, including intelligence, through means that remain contentious in ethical discussions.
The company’s practices include advising couples on ranking embryos based on multiple attributes, such as IQ, gender, height, and the likelihood of developing certain health conditions. Heliospect claims that its predictive tools are based on data sourced from the UK Biobank—an extensive public genetic database amassed from half a million British volunteers. While UK law forbids embryo selection solely based on predicted IQ, such screenings are permitted in the US, where regulations surrounding embryology are notably more lenient. Despite this, the procedure of screening for IQ has yet to become commercially available in the American market, prompting leading geneticists and bioethicists to voice their concerns regarding the moral implications of this service and emphasizing the need for public debate on such sensitive issues.
Michael Christensen, the CEO of Heliospect, envisions a future where genetic selection enables prospective parents to conceive “disease-free, smart, healthy” children. He speculates about the possibility of utilizing lab-grown eggs for mass embryo creation, suggesting an alarming potential for selective breeding reminiscent of eugenics. Nevertheless, he retracted his stance somewhat when contacted for comments, stating that Heliospect does not endorse such practices, reflecting a dissonance between commercial vision and ethical responsibility.
Heliospect was granted access to sensitive UK Biobank genetic data in June 2023 purportedly to enhance the prediction abilities of “complex traits.” However, the company did not disclose its intention to use the data for embryo screening or mention any ambition to assess intelligence. They indicated that they have already offered embryo analysis services to five couples. This raises significant ethical inquiries about the criteria employed in granting access to such vital genetic data, with experts suggesting that new regulations may be needed to ensure that embryo screening for potentially socially prejudiced criteria does not occur.
The UK Biobank’s operational integrity and the ethical ramifications of its partnerships have been questioned since the revelations about Heliospect’s activities. Prof Sir Rory Collins, the chief executive of UK Biobank, stated that Heliospect’s use of the data aligns with its access conditions, asserting that making such data available could yield medical breakthroughs. He presented the notion that allowing data to lead to discoveries could significantly contribute to public health and welfare, arguing that controlled access to genetic information is vital for scientific advancement.
The situation presents a complex intersection of science, ethics, and public policy surrounding genetic research and embryo selection. As the debate continues, it remains clear that there is a pressing need for increased scrutiny around the implications of genetic selection technologies, including the ethicality of their application in reproductive health. Experts continue to advocate for ongoing conversations involving the public and policymakers to navigate these emerging biotechnological landscapes responsibly and thoughtfully.
