Polygenic traits should not be used for selecting embryos

The article below is an important perspective on the troubling potential use of polygenic trait scores to select embryos, written by one of the directors of the EMBL-EBI on his blog. Polygenic traits are directly affected by several loci and typically exhibit phenotypes that have continuous distributions, such as intelligence and height. While some pretty obvious arguments can be made for why using polygenic traits for selecting embryos would be immoral, this article helps to make clear that it would also likely be an ineffective way to guarantee your child has a certain height and IQ.

Polygenic trait scores, their value to medicine and for making predictions about humans, is being discussed very actively right now. Some of the most exciting, real-time conversations about polygenic traits and polygenic risk scores are happening on Twitter in real time. I strongly encourage you to follow Ewan Birney (@ewanbirney) and Cecile Janssens (@cecilejanssens) professor of translational epidemiology at Emory University, for her consistently clear and insightful comments on how we interpret whole genome data.

Why embryo selection for polygenic traits is wrong.

MAY 26, 2019 BY EWANBIRNEY

This week (May 20th 2019) has seen yet another splash by an American company offering a polygenic trait score on embryos including intelligence. This is wrong on a number of levels; ethically it is wrong to make this decision as an independent laboratory without broad societal buy in; scientifically it is wrong to imagine the ways we assess polygenic traits will translate into safe and effective embryo selection; for the specifics of IQ/Educational attainment trait this trait is so complex this is additionally unwise over and above any concerns.

READ MORE …

When is the right time to have your child's genome sequenced?

Every new technology will raise questions about its potential and effects, especially in regards to children. So it should be no surprise that now, as genome sequencing technology becomes cheaper, better, and more accessible to consumers, some important and sometimes impassioned conversations are going to have to happen. For some perspective, people had grave concerns about kids playing Dungeons & Dragons when it first became popular. The article below does a nice job covering some important points to consider.

Now You Can Genetically Test Your Child For Disease Risks. Should You?

Genomics is cheaper and more available then ever, but its usefulness for parents has yet to be proven…

“Most direct-to-consumer genetic testing services still require that patients be at least 18 years old. But there are workarounds. The popular at-home DNA test 23andMe requires that users be 18, but parents can order $199 kits for their offspring and send back their saliva through the mail, according to spokesman Andy Kill. (Kill says the company doesn't have statistics on how many children’s samples it has received.) And in April, the FDA ruled that 23andMe could release reports about patients’ risks for diseases, including Parkinson’s and late-onset Alzheimer’s diseases.

As testing children for genetic diseases becomes available to more parents, it is raising difficult ethical questions. For instance: Would the knowledge that your kid might get sick someday make you treat them differently? “There’s a concern that parents might connect to kids in a different way if they knew something negative about their future,” says Laventhal. Perhaps you'd be proactive by pushing your daughters to freeze their eggs at a young age, if you knew they were at risk for cancers and might undergo cancer treatments that could hurt their fertility.

“You’re going to create a lot of unnecessary stress and anxiety and make parents crazy,” adds Dr. Lainie Friedman Ross, who researches genetic testing policy at the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics at the University of Chicago. “

READ MORE …