The New York Times April 1, 2025

I.V.F., Gene Selection and Embryo Screening: Is This the Future of Making Babies?

Published on April 1, 2025, in The New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/04/01/opinion/ivf-gene-selection-fertility.html.

Published on April 1, 2025, in The New York Times, Jessica Wapner’s article, “I.V.F., Gene Selection and Embryo Screening: Is This the Future of Making Babies?” explores the rapidly evolving landscape of in vitro fertilization (IVF).

Technological Advancements:

• Preimplantation Genetic Testing (P.G.T.): Utilized in over 50% of U.S. IVF cycles, P.G.T. tests embryos for chromosomal abnormalities and single-gene disorders like cystic fibrosis, costing $3,000–$5,000 per batch. It significantly improves IVF success rates and reduces genetic disease risks.
• Polygenic Embryo Screening (P.G.T.-P.): A newer, controversial tool, P.G.T.-P. screens for complex conditions such as heart disease and nonmedical traits like intelligence. Companies like Orchid and Heliospect Genomics claim potential IQ gains of over 6 points, though such claims face skepticism due to limited evidence.
• Time-Lapse Microscopy: Introduced in the early 2010s, this technology aids embryo selection by providing continuous developmental data but lacks conclusive evidence of improving live birth rates.

Ethical and Societal Implications:
These technologies reshape reproductive medicine by enabling precise embryo selection but raise profound ethical, societal, and regulatory questions. The article highlights significant ethical concerns, particularly unregulated trait selection in the U.S., which contrasts with bans in Europe (e.g., Britain and Germany). A 2022 survey indicates 40% of respondents are open to using P.G.T.-P. for nonmedical traits like college admission potential, reflecting public acceptance.

Analysis and Insights:
Through scientific explanations, industry insights, and public opinion data, Wapner examines whether these tools represent the future of baby-making and their societal implications. The piece discusses the role of companies like Orchid and Heliospect Genomics, offering a business perspective. The lack of U.S. regulation, combined with public willingness to embrace these technologies, could accelerate adoption, but without oversight, social, ethical, and scientific consequences remain uncertain.

Conclusion:
Wapner poses the question: Is this the future of making babies? The article suggests that while P.G.T., P.G.T.-P., and time-lapse microscopy offer unprecedented opportunities to enhance IVF outcomes, they challenge society to confront issues of ethics, equity, and human reproduction. It serves as both a celebration of scientific progress and a cautionary tale, urging consideration of a future where genetic selection becomes routine.