“There is no gene for the human spirit,” warns the protagonist of Gattaca, a film that imagines a future in which DNA decides who is valid and who does not. In that world, the genetic selection at birth assigns professions and determines the destiny of each. What seemed science fiction in the nineties begins to look at reality today: Silicon Valley, cradle of technological giants, has become an epicenter of a new market that seeks to optimize the next generation before even born.
Babies to the letter. In a report by The Wall Street Journalstartups such as nucleus genomics, Herasight and Orchid Health They have brought the screening of embryos beyond the usual in in vitro fertilization (IVF). If before the objective was to rule out chromosomal anomalies or serious mutations such as cystic fibrosis or Down syndrome, predictions about the intellectual quotient (IQ) and the propensity to diseases such as Alzheimer’s, cancer or diabetes are now added.
In this ecosystem, prices range between $ 2,500 per embryo analyzed in Orchid (to add 20,000 of an IVF cycle, According to Washington Post), The 6,000 of Nuleus or the 50,000 of Herasight. The clientele concentrates on the technological elites of San Francisco, where, As the WSJ has reportedthere are even matrimonial agents specialized in matching managers with “intelligent” couples to “have smart children.” Elon Musk has publicly defended that people with high intellectual talent should reproduce more.
Prevention or social engineering? Behind the fever due to the genetic screening of embryos in Silicon Valley, very different motivations coexist, ranging from the intimate desire to avoid diseases to ambitious social engineering visions.
For many future parents, priority is strictly medical: minimizing the risk of transmitting mutations associated with serious ailments to their children. This was the case of Simone and Malcolm Collins, cited by the Wall Street Journalwho, through the Startup Herasight, selected an embryo with low cancer probability; A medical decision that coincided with another “benefit”: the prediction that the child would be in the 99 intelligence percentile.
On the other hand, other customers have come to these services promoted by a more openly cognitive objective. The mathematician TSVI Benson-Tilsen, co-founder of the Berkeley Genomics Project, He explained to the WSJ that his goal is to “make more geniuses” capable of facing global threats such as artificial intelligence out of control. And on a more ideological plane, the trend is aligned with pronatalism that, As my partner has written in Xatakagains influence in the United States and Europe: figures such as Elon Musk or Vice President JD Vance.
The process. The path to an “optimized baby” begins the same as any in vitro fertilization treatment: ovarian stimulation, ovules extraction and laboratory fertilization. According to Washington Postthis step alone already represents about $ 20,000 per cycle, without counting genetic analysis services. Five days, at the blastocyst stadium, between five and ten cells of each embryo are extracted. This minimum material is amplified to sequence the genome, but the technique can introduce errors.
From there, startups come into play, who apply algorithms to calculate risks and estimate traits. The reports that parents receive are more similar to a financial spreadsheet than a medical history: “How many points of IQ compensate for 1% more Risk of ADHD?” Or “What risk of Alzheimer’s accept in exchange for less probability of bipolarity?” The result of this reproductive engineering exercise is the selection of an embryo that, on paper, maximizes health and intelligence expectations. That will be, if the pregnancy thrives, the son who is born.
Science under suspicion. While the marketing of these companies promises unprecedented control over the genetic future of a child, the science behind some statements is at least fragile. The Wall Street Journal collect the warning Of the geneticist Shai Carmi, a pioneer in polygenic prediction models: for the intellectual coefficient, current models only explain between 5% and 10% of the real variation between people. Translated to practical results, choosing the embryo with the “best” genetic score would barely mean an average gain of three or four points of IQ in front of choosing a random one.
To this is added a technical problem: working with a few cells forces to amplify DNA, and that process can introduce distortions. Stanford Genetist Svetlana Yatsenko compared it at the Washington Post with “playing Russian roulette”: a mutation could appear as present or absent due to an amplification error, not to the genetic reality of the embryo.
In addition, there are population limitations. Most genetic databases come from populations of European descent, which makes the predictions less precise – until 50% less – for people with different origins. Although companies such as Orchid claim to apply statistical corrections and, in some cases, avoid giving scores if they are not reliable, the source bias remains a scientific aquiles heel.
And we arrive at the ethical dilemma. Selecting for a specific feature can lead to unexpected consequences. As Harvard statistic Sasha Gustav has warned In the WSJchoosing the most estimated embryonic embryability of high IQ could involve, at the same time, increase genetic predisposition to autistic spectrum disorder. In other words, genes are rarely “clean” from complex associations and, in many cases, which is optimized on the one hand can be a risk for another.
Finally, there is the debate on whether this practice constitutes a new form of eugenics, even if it is private and voluntary. Lior Pachter, Bioeticist cited in the Washington Postbelieves that translating human genome into a series of numerical scores encourages the idea that “genes are better than others” and feeds a social division based on DNA. For defenders, such as TSVI Benson-Tilsen or Collins, it is not about discriminating, but about giving the children the best possible opportunity. For critics, it is to open the door to a world where the value of a person decides even that it is born.
Pronatalism and Eugenics. The famous Sydney Sweeney announcement, in which a word game between genes and jeans served as a commercial wink, unleashed a storm in networks. For many, it was a reminder of how quickly genetics has gone from laboratories and biology classrooms to daily conversation and mass consumption.
The context is not only a doctor. The rise of pronatalist speech in the United States – with figures such as Elon Musk or vice president JD Vance asking for more births – is intertwined with the interest of Silicon Valley investors in reproductive technologies. Peter Thiel, Brian Armstrong and other heavyweights of the technology industry have invested in companies in this sector, convinced that reproductive genetics is both a business opportunity and a “Bet on the future” of society. Far from being marginal, this market is emerging as a new front where science, ideology and capital converge.
A future in spreadsheets. Silicon Valley dreams of molded laboratory children who combine perfect health and exceptional intelligence. For some, it is the natural evolution of preventive medicine; For others, the first step towards a society divided by DNA. Between the desire to prevent diseases and the ambition to create geniuses, the laboratory becomes cradle and the future is written, not in children’s stories, but on spreadsheets. The question that survives remains that of Gattaca: if we can mold the next generation, who decides what it means to be “better”?
Xataka | Sydney Sweeney stars in a new announcement of jeans. And for some it is the end of the “era woke”
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings