If the last two decades have taught us anything, it is that the slippery slope is indeed slippery. What society once naturally recoiled from\u2014designer babies, artificial wombs, and the termination of disabled children\u2014is today the source of misguided compassion. Nowhere is this more obvious than in assisted reproductive technology. The desire to overcome the natural limitations of procreation has led researchers to develop startling new technologies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The first, embryonic polygenetic screening, allows scientists to test how multiple genes interact and predict an embryo\u2019s likelihood for conditions such as hearing loss, obesity, or insulin resistance. Similarly, genetic researchers claim this technology can discern an embryonic child\u2019s personality traits such as kindness, creativity, and his\/her intellectual aptitude.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The second technology, in vitro<\/em> gametogenesis (IVG), genetically modifies human cells into viable egg and sperm\u2014regardless of the person\u2019s sex or age. This means that one man could father a child he is 100% related to or two women could be the genetic parents of the same child.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Such technologies subvert God\u2019s good design for human procreation and undermine the inherent worth and dignity of each child. Indeed, as Joshua Mitchell argues<\/a>, technology can either be a substitute<\/em> for the human person or it can supplement<\/em> human flourishing. When it comes to reproductive technology, embryonic polygenetic screening and IVG are attempts to substitute<\/em> the human person. In this article, I hope to give a brief overview of two new technological developments that Christians ought to oppose: embryonic polygenetic screening and in vitro<\/em> gametogenesis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Embryonic polygenic screening is a new technology that allows prospective parents to test an embryo\u2019s genetic makeup with unprecedented detail. Unlike traditional preimplantation genetic testing that only looks for specific single-gene disorders or sex, polygenic screening looks at how multiple genes interact to assess an embryo\u2019s risk for more complex conditions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n New companies, like Orchid<\/a>, use this technology and give each embryo(s) a polygenic risk score that shows an embryo\u2019s chances of developing a range of health outcomes. Parents are given a polygenic \u201cscore\u201d that shows an embryo\u2019s likelihood of developing heart disease, insulin resistance, or even hearing loss. This score, of course, entirely overlooks the role of \u201cnurture\u201d in favor of the embryo\u2019s genetic \u201cnature.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n This desire for a healthy child, however, may quickly give way to a dystopian world where parents can select embryos based on their potential IQ or personality traits. As an undercover report published in The Guardian<\/a> shows, another genetic testing company, Heliospect Genomics, may go so far as to allow parents to choose children with \u201cdark triad\u201d traits, \u201ca reference to Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy.\u201d[1]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Not only does this technology reject the inherent worth and dignity of each child, but it gives parents a false sense of control and security from the natural vulnerabilities of childbearing. As I explore in a recent essay for Public Discourse<\/a>,<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is here that we see the most pernicious examples of Silicon Valley\u2019s genuine, but misguided, compassion. Noor Siddiqui<\/a> recounts her own mother\u2019s experience as part of her inspiration for launching Orchid\u2019s advanced genetic analysis operation. When Siddiqui was only in high school, she watched as a rare degenerative retinal disease slowly destroyed her mother\u2019s eyesight. This condition, while not life-threatening, altered her mother\u2019s life and left a lasting impact on Noor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Her solution? The creation of advanced polygenic technology that allows parents to weed out embryos who may develop similar, or worse, conditions. The irony of this, of course, is that this technology does not heal <\/em>the unhealthy embryos\u2014it destroys them. If such technology had been available and desirable to Siddiqui\u2019s grandparents, it is very possible that neither she nor her mother would have been born. At the end of the day, is the desire for the healthiest child worth the cost of all those whose lives will be deemed unworthy?<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the name of their children living their healthiest life, this technological worldview has trained many in Silicon Valley to view the human person as individual parts or raw material whose genetic makeup predetermines their values, beliefs, capabilities, and identity. Nurture plays a secondary, or unimportant, role in the development of each child. Such conclusions, which ignore both religious insights and sociological findings, enable parents to free themselves from the personal responsibility of stewarding their child\u2019s development. At the same time, it heightens their self-imposed responsibility to create and select genetically superior children.[2]<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Embryonic polygenetic screening is a prime example of technology as a substitute, rather than a supplement, for human flourishing. Instead of pursuing treatments that may heal or improve a child\u2019s health, such technology merely discards embryos with potential health problems. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The legal structure that governs IVF\u2014namely, that anyone has the right to create and parent a child\u2014sets the legal precedent that emerging reproductive technologies such as in vitro<\/em> gametogenesis (IVG) will fulfill biologically.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With IVG, doctors can reprogram any human cell<\/em> into viable egg or sperm<\/em>. In 2016, Japanese researchers Katsuhiko Hayashi and Mitinori Saitou made history when they announced that they had conceived mice from genetically modified skin cells<\/a>. Many mice appeared grossly normal and were able to naturally conceive their own pups. While researchers have not successfully replicated this with human DNA, Japanese and American scientists are working on it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Scholars estimate that science is anywhere from ten to twenty years away from such treatments being available for human use. As NPR\u2019s Rob Stein said<\/a>, IVG is \u201cIVF 2.0\u2026 a revolutionary technology [that is] life-altering for those with infertility.\u201d Indeed, the motivation for developing this technology is two-fold. Hayashi and Saitou, for example, cite their desire to help women who, due to cancer, injury, age, or an at-birth defect, are unable to produce viable eggs. In the United States, researchers at Conception<\/a> hope to use this technology to enable same-sex couples to achieve joint biological parenthood. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Taken together, procreation would no longer require a distinct man and woman with healthy gametes to create a child: cells from an embryo, child, elderly person, single adult, or group of adults could be used to create viable embryos. Worse, skin cells could be taken from people without their knowledge or consent, including from those who are dead.<\/p>\n\n\n\nTechnology as a Substitute: Embryonic Polygenetic Screening and IVG<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Embryonic Polygenic Screening<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
1. Hannah Devlin et al., \u201cUS Startup Charging Couples to \u2018Screen Embryos for IQ,\u2019<\/a>\u201d The Guardian<\/em>, October 18, 2024.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n
\n
2. Emma Waters, \u201cThe Pronatalism of Silicon Valley,<\/a>\u201d Public Discourse, August 13, 2024.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n
In Vitro Gametogenesis<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n