A recent report indicates that parents in Silicon Valley are investing up to $50,000 on embryo screening.
Some are pushing what might be termed eugenics programs, aiming to engineer a new generation of exceptionally gifted children, all in hopes of equipping them to tackle the very challenges humanity poses to itself.
This might sound straight out of a “Twilight Zone” episode, but it’s a reality for affluent tech executives. The Wall Street Journal has more on this topic.
Companies like Nucleus Genomics and Herasight are charging couples utilizing in vitro fertilization anywhere from $6,000 up to $50,000 for comprehensive genetic screenings of embryos, including assessments of potential IQ.
“Silicon Valley has a fascination with IQ,” remarked Kian Sadeghi, founder of Nucleus Genomics, as he spoke to the Journal.
In contrast, many average American parents—while not explicitly wanting prodigies—tend to hope for children who attain success, perhaps even at Harvard.
Simone and Malcolm Collins are prominent figures in this movement advocating for larger families. They work in tech and venture capital and have four children conceived through IVF.
Simone mentioned that she utilized Herasight for embryo selection during her current pregnancy, thrilled to discover she ranked in the 99th percentile for various genetic factors that hint at high intelligence.
They even plan to name their child Demaezine, inspired by a character from the science fiction novel “Surface Detail.”
Couples in the Bay Area are pursuing IVF, despite the hefty costs, to eliminate genetic risks like Alzheimer’s and cancer that run in families.
Yet, among these couples, there’s an additional interest in predicting intelligence. A pair of software engineers, who consider themselves rather typical for their field, even created Google Sheets to organize and prioritize their Herasight results based on significance.
For instance, they noted, “Balancing the lifetime risk of Alzheimer’s disease with a 1% decrease in the risk of bipolar disorder.” They also pondered, “Does the added risk of ADHD justify a gain of 10 IQ points?”
Interestingly, the embryo deemed to have the best overall score, including the third-highest predicted IQ, turned out to be a girl.
The concept of IQ testing underlies a new eugenics movement led by TSVI Benson-Tilsen, who claims extensive genetic testing could potentially create a generation of geniuses capable of addressing the threats posed by artificial intelligence.
He emphasized a desire to empower parents to select certain genetic traits, underlining this is a significant distinction from the darker history of eugenics that occurred under Nazi Germany.
In Silicon Valley, it’s already common for tech executives to spend significant sums on matchmaking services or enroll their children in elite kindergartens with entrance exams.
“I have three high-tech CEOs as clients, and everyone’s aiming for the Ivy League,” said Jennifer Donnelly, a high-end matchmaker who asks for up to $500,000. “They aren’t solely focused on romance; they’re considering genetics, educational success, and legacy.”
This fixation on “genetic optimization” has raised alarms among bioethicists who argue that such testing creates unfair advantages.
Concerns about the accuracy of these IQ predictions are also prevalent. Shai Kalmi, an associate professor at Hebrew University, noted, “This approach doesn’t necessarily make your child a genius.”
Moreover, parents resorting to this technology might inadvertently choose other traits that come with potential high IQ scores. For instance, selecting what appears to be the optimal IQ embryo could also mean unconsciously favoring one with a higher likelihood of autism spectrum disorder.
