>
Most Americans are open to the idea of genetically modifying their children if it increases their chances of getting into a top university, a study suggests.
Advances in gene-editing technology since the first successful IVF birth in 1978 mean that many scientists predict that they will be able to offer parents the chance to enhance certain traits in their children before they are born, making them smarter or stronger, or giving them red hair.
Parents already using IVF can screen their unborn baby for risks of particular conditions or traits, such as schizophrenia and Crohn’s disease, even before the fertilized embryo implants in the uterus.
In the latest study, researchers from across the US, including Harvard, surveyed more than 6,800 adults to gauge how willing they would be to select for genetic variants in their future children if it meant getting them into one of the top 100 universities.
US adults under 35 with college degrees were more willing to use IVF in conjunction with polygenic embryo screening to summarize the estimated effect of hundreds or even thousands of genetic variants associated with a baby’s risk of having a particular condition
Compared to the full sample, people under 35 reported a greater willingness than the full sample to use gene editing, the PGT-P, and SAT prep for educational advancement.
People were given the choice of using the screening tool known as the genetic test for polygenic risk (PGT-P), employing gene-editing technology, or enrolling their children in a course to prepare them for the SATs.
They found that, on average, the majority (69 percent) of people would choose to enroll their children in an SAT test preparation course in order to get a head start on college admissions. Meanwhile, 34 percent would be open to gene editing and 43 percent would use PGT-P.
Gene editing technology has not yet advanced to the point of improving someone’s IQ, nor can it cure cancer or fight serious diseases.
But the field of biotechnology is advancing at such a breakneck pace that they may be relatively close on the horizon.
PGT-P summarizes the estimated effect of hundreds or even thousands of genetic variants associated with a baby’s risk of having a particular condition or trait, such as schizophrenia and Crohn’s disease.
It helps parents conceiving through IVF to select the embryo for transfer that does not carry specific rare disease genes. But the technology has been mired in ethical debate.
US adults under the age of 35 with college degrees were more willing to use in vitro fertilization (IVF) along with PGT-P.
They were asked about their moral stance on gene-editing technology, as well as how likely they were to use it to increase their children’s chances of getting into an elite university.
A minority of people surveyed, just 41 percent, said they had no moral or ethical problem with gene editing for “certain medical and non-medical characteristics.”
The scientists also found that people were more likely to take advantage of gene-sensing technology when told that people in similar situations would, suggesting a “wagon effect.”
A minority of participants (41 percent) said they had no moral objection to gene editing for certain medical and non-medical traits.
The study said: “Those who were told that 90% of relevant people used each service were more likely to say they would use it, too, compared to those who were told that 10% of people would.” they were using.”
They added that most people do not fully understand what the technologies entail and how they work, leading many to underestimate security risks and overestimate their effectiveness.
Dr. Michelle Meyer, a Geisinger bioethicist and first author of the paper, said: “There is, rightly, a lot of concern among academics, including us, that IVF companies and clinics using polygenic embryo detection they may intentionally or unintentionally exaggerate their likely impact.
In fact, technology had a minor impact on the odds of having a child attend a top 100 college from three to five percent.
Dr. Meyer added: “And a lot of people are still interested.”
the report was published in science.
While the proportion of prospective parents willing to go down the gene editing route was lower than that of those most willing to use traditional SAT prep courses, the research team’s findings reflect a growing interest in the future implications of technology.
Private fertility-focused companies are cashing in on technology applications for parents-to-be that can detect rare diseases, type 2 diabetes, cancers and even non-medical traits like height and IQ.
Even as the technology becomes more popular and accessible as private companies take advantage of it, the ethical debate about it continues.
Bioethicists have raised concerns about gene editing and the effects of CRISPR technologies on a child’s personal autonomy and future.
There is also concern about the unregulated commercialization of gene-modifying and surveillance technologies, which would be more accessible to the wealthy and well-connected.
Genetically modifying human embryos has been the stuff of techno-utopian dreams for years, but most Americans are still unconvinced when it comes to the medical ethics of such a procedure.
Bioethicists, including some experts behind the latest study, saying in 2021: ‘Historical eugenics policies that sought to weed out people deemed “feeble-minded” or socially “unfit” make the selection of embryos for educational attainment, income, intelligence, and related traits deeply concerning.
‘Another very worrying use of ESPS [embryo selection based on polygenic scores] it would be the selection of traits on the basis of social constructions of race, such as skin pigmentation, hair color or facial features. Selection on the basis of such traits could reinforce racist conceptions of biological superiority by signaling, either explicitly or implicitly, that certain traits carry value or stigma, possibly amplifying racial prejudice and discrimination.’
A CivicScience survey conducted last year found that just 31 percent of adults said using CRISPR to edit a baby’s DNA was “very ethical” or “somewhat ethical,” compared with a combined 68 percent who said it was “somewhat unethical” or ” very unethical.”