The Story of Dax: A Designer Baby and the Future of Eugenics

Arthur Zey and Chase Popp, like any new parents, believe their one-month-old son, Dax, is utterly perfect. They can’t help but beam with pride as they talk about his good health, his cheerful nature, and, interestingly, his absence of diaper rash.

But what’s different about Zey and Popp is that they don’t solely credit their parenting skills for Dax’s temperament.

Last March, they were presented with six embryos created from Zey’s sperm combined with a donor’s eggs, ready to be implanted in a surrogate mother. They were able to use genetic analysis to get predictions about potential heights, IQs, and a variety of health markers for each embryo.

Ultimately, they picked one, making Dax a remarkable example of the evolving landscape of commercial eugenics.

Toting Dax on his shoulder, Popp, an elementary school teacher aged 29, expressed that their observations of Dax validated their choices: “Looking at Dax, he overall seems like he feels good, he looks healthy to me.” When people refer to Dax as a designer baby, he takes it as a compliment. “Yes, he is a designer baby, and we’re proud of it,” he added.

Zey, 41 and currently a stay-at-home dad, reflected on his own upbringing, wishing he had access to similar advances during his time, even dreaming of having traits like increased muscle mass right from conception. “If it is within your means to affect your child’s life for the better,” he asserted, “I think that’s the responsible, compassionate thing to do.”

While geneticists debate the reliability of embryo screening for characteristics such as intelligence and mental health, it’s an industry experiencing rapid growth—often funded by tech moguls interested in the idea of creating a “super race.” Arthur Caplan, who specializes in medical ethics, expressed skepticism about their motives, suggesting that many are more focused on their own interests than considering broader societal impacts.

It all feels like something out of a dystopian novel—where a genetically privileged class dominates over those who, due to barriers in access, cannot improve their own genetic makeup. The film “Gattaca,” released in 1997, explored these themes, portraying a future where elite individuals inherited the most favorable genes, while others were barred from various opportunities due to their less advantageous genetic backgrounds. It served as a cautionary tale about the societal implications of eugenics, and sadly, many of its dystopian elements are becoming a reality.

In 2018, a Chinese scientist named He Jiankui announced he had created the world’s first gene-edited babies, claiming modification of embryos to give them immunity to HIV. His actions were met with severe backlash, leading to a jail sentence and a ban on gene editing in reproductive cells across China.

Though released in 2022, he aims to continue his research—notably to erase conditions like Alzheimer’s. However, he warned against enhancing traits such as intelligence for non-medical reasons, labeling such actions a “Nazi eugenic experiment” that should be criminalized. Who exactly he was targeting remains unclear, but several Silicon Valley-backed startups are delving into embryo editing despite widespread research bans on human embryos.

The medical community is hesitant about these so-called “embryo editors.” Fyodor Urnov, from the Innovative Genomics Institute at Berkeley, criticized their focus, suggesting it aims more for “baby improvement” rather than genuine medical progress—a sentiment echoed by many in the field.

One such San Francisco startup, Preventive, has attracted attention with $30 million in funding. Its backers include notable figures like OpenAI’s CEO and Coinbase’s co-founder, plus ambitions of transforming reproduction through genetic editing. Meanwhile, Preventive’s founder refused to discuss ongoing research but criticized He Jiankui’s intent to resume exploring embryo editing without acknowledging the risks involved.

There are genuine concerns about the risks of gene editing: the possibility of targeting incorrect genes or introducing unintended changes to DNA. Then there are broader ethical questions—who decides what impacts health versus enhancement? Could this widen social divides? What if mistakes arise, affecting unborn generations?

Though gene editing for embryos is still a distant goal, several companies provide genetic screening. Nucleus Genomics, for example, is advertised in New York’s subway with slogans like “Have Your Best Baby,” backed by tech elites and focusing on various traits, including predispositions to conditions like acne or anxiety.

Zey and Popp opted for a service known as Herasight, which emerged last year, to assess embryos at a price of $50,000. They promise insights into traits like IQ, height, and potential risk factors for diseases.

Jonathan Anomaly, a director at Herasight, cautioned against the alarmist language surrounding “eugenics,” believing it stifles parental choice regarding their children. He stresses the importance of focusing on individual autonomy, rather than getting caught up in sensational terms.

For decades, technologies exist that can screen embryos from IVF for genetic diseases. Yet, many traits being evaluated by services like Herasight involve multiple genes, complicating reliable predictions about outcomes. Anomaly stands by their approach, arguing they have vast amounts of data to substantiate their methods.

He does concede that at present, such services cater primarily to the wealthy, although he hopes prices will decrease as techniques improve.

Zey foresees a future that may separate genetically enhanced individuals from those who are not. Still, he holds an optimistic view about societal progression, expressing a firm belief that better traits in some could elevate humanity overall. He feels confident that Baby Dax, chosen for his promising longevity and intellect, could excel. “Do we have an expectation that he’s going to be brilliant? Yes,” Zey stated.

Though Zey and Popp benefitted from the technology as a pilot case for Herasight, Caplan argues that many wealthy people would pay for such advantages, even if they’re merely buying into an illusion of progress.