In Praise of Designer-ish Babies (Economist)

Summary

The Leader accompanying How Much Would You Pay for a Smarter Baby (Economist). Position: polygenic embryo screening is immature and over-sold, and the ethical objections contain "kernels of truth", but banning or heavily restricting it would be a mistake; the right response is mandatory disclosure of limits plus independent scrutiny of the tests. Concept page: Polygenic Embryo Screening.

Key claims

• Demand is latent, not niche. One survey has three-quarters of Americans supporting embryo screening for diseases and about a third for non-disease traits. Falling IVF costs (a wave of investment) would widen the funnel, and competitive pressure ("who wants their child bested by genetically selected classmates?") would push take-up.
• The medical establishment is sceptical. Nearly every genetics and reproductive-medicine group in the rich world questions whether polygenic prediction is consumer-ready. In Britain, selecting an embryo on non-approved factors is unlawful.
• The science caveats the Leader accepts: polygenic scores give risk estimates, not the near-certain answers monogenic tests give; they are more accurate for people of European ancestry because databases over-represent them; relative risk reductions can look large while absolute reductions are small, especially for rare diseases; selecting for one trait can raise the risk of another; and even for height, parents are limited to the range in their own embryos.
• The "not snake oil" evidence: a 2019 study found parents choosing among ten embryos could raise a child's height by 1–6 cm and IQ by 1–7 points, on technology now nearly a decade old. Bigger, more diverse databases and AI should improve scores.

What the article flags as unproven or contested

• The effect sizes above are modelled, not observed in born children; the Business feature's figures (median 2.9 cm, 3 IQ points for ten embryos) sit inside this range and the Leader's own "nearly a decade old" caveat cuts both ways.
• Ethical objections considered and rejected: "unnatural" (also applies to IVF); only-for-the-rich (costs should fall); "this century's eugenics" (coercion versus parental choice). The Leader concedes the ethical questions grow as the tech improves.
• Closing caveat: couples wanting a clever child "might be better advised to focus on what happens after birth".

Wikilinks

• How Much Would You Pay for a Smarter Baby (Economist) — paired Business feature with the startups, prices and the science critique in detail.
• Polygenic Embryo Screening — concept page.
• Newborn Genome Sequencing — the post-birth counterpart; same penetrance and absolute-risk caveats.
• The Economist — Leaders.

Captured-by trigger

Source file: raw/processed/Economist 2026-08-15 Leaders - In praise of designer-ish babies.md.