125
UK IVF couples use legal loophole to rank embryos based on potential IQ, height and health
(www.theguardian.com)
Is there actual science to predict IQ based on genes?
this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2025
125 points (100.0% liked)
World News
51082 readers
1194 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
- Blogsites are treated in the same manner as social media sites. Medium, Blogger, Substack, etc. are not valid news links regardless of who is posting them. Yes, legitimate news sites use Blogging platforms, they also use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube and we don't allow those links either.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
A test of almost 453,000 people showed consistent results that higher IQ could be traced in the genome, but environmental factors play an almost equal role in intelligence. There is still a lot of debate surrounding the subject.
Interesting. Thanks!
Gattaca was a great movie and definitely didn't portray any social issues whatsoever stemming from actions like this!
Oh neat, eugenics
Sometimes I do think it's a shame. We as a species could end genetic disease within 1 generation. We could have a smart, stronger, kinder, and ultimately healthier humanity.
But we aren't ready for it. Any attempt would be forced. Any attempt would get tainted immediately by racism, religion, nationalism, etc.
Sometimes it makes me sad to think of the potential of technology and how we'll likely never be able to use it ethically or responsibly
There is a strong possibility we would also get it wrong. Diversity is a strength. Who knows what tomorrow brings.
I get where you're coming from, but the percentage of our genome needing to change to greatly improve the species is less than you'd think
This is asinine. Diversity is a strength, that doesn't mean that horrific genetic diseases that cause enormous pain and suffering are.
Eh, don't be rude. You are likely thinking of single gene mutations or other clear well defined problems.
My mind was more on polygenic diseases or genes with variable expressiveness. Where humans being humans we target things where we don't completely understand the outcomes.
We screen for chromosomal abnormalities I don't have a problem with that for example.
Were it so easy. Sickle cell disease also conveys resistance to malaria
Yes, congratulations. Can you name a benefit of having the BRCA mutation?
If you had it, and you gave it to your daughter, how would you tell them that they have cancer because you thought the idea of using IVF to select against it was icky?
Yes. Tumors get suppressed.
That is what the gene does, the mutation does the opposite and causes massively increased rates of breast and ovarian cancer.
The fact it is so prevalent in the gene pool suggests there may be some benefit we are unaware of. Further study is needed.
Edit: and it doesn't 'cause', it puts you 'at risk for'.
Evolution doesn't create perfect.
Evolution favors whatever traits are passed on. If you live long enough to reproduce then mission accomplished. Your quality of life leading up to that doesn't matter as long as you survive long enough to do the deed
The fact it is so prevalent in the gene pool suggests there may be some benefit we are unaware of. Further study is needed.
No it doesn't. That's not how evolution works. It is not perfect, it does not march towards good, it rolls random die and sees if that leads to having kids or not. If you get old enough to have kids and have them procreate it very much stops caring.
Edit: and it doesn't 'cause', it puts you 'at risk for'.
And I said that the mutation causes massive increases in the rate of breast cancer. Which it does. Read more carefully if you're going to try to be pedantic.
Note that this is also the argument in favor of giving all the kids malaria. Everyone gets it without intervention, so it must be useful. Sure some people have a really really bad time, but....
No. No it isn't, and I hope you actually understand that.
It's already starting to happen and it's not this crazy mass casualty event you make it out to be.
People regularly do IVF and screen out embryos that have inherited horrific genetic diseases, or say, genes that they know make highly susceptible to cancer.
It doesn't mean it will inherently lead to a slippery slope. This article is literally about how the UK needs to update its laws to prevent people from getting IVF done there but getting the genetic analysis done elsewhere and then ranking their options based on that to avoid the UKs current laws that would prevent a UK clinic from ranking them like that.
You misunderstand, to have an impact species wide it would be a "mass casuality" event. What's being done with IVF is too insignificant to the entire gene pool to cure us of genetic based disease or any of the other positives
Home grown, local eugenics.
Kinda like how picking who to marry is also eugenics.
If you pick your spouse specifically because of your prospective offsprings traits then yes, but that's not exactly why everyone gets married.
Genetic traits explains a fair amount of physical attraction.
Which is one of many aspects of romantic attraction.
Well, slightly outsourced, but as long as the loophole persists, it could be fully local.
Gattaca theme music intensifies.
But under data protection laws, patients can – and in some cases have – demanded their embryos’ raw genetic data and sent it abroad for analysis in an effort to have smarter, healthier children.
One US company, Herasight, which charges couples $50,000 (£37,000) to assess an unlimited number of embryos, confirmed that it had already worked with couples undergoing IVF at clinics in the UK.
They should have just given the data to some online AI and ask it directly which one should live. That's what that company prob did anyways.
/s
Yes, let's have this discussion.
Personally, I think screening for disease is a win. Give that service by default. Though we need this happening where somebody can check the data (grift would be very bad in this space).
I know 'slippery slope' is a logical fallacy, but I think it's applicable here.
We scan for disease, easy sell. But since we're doing it anyway, let's also include physical defects. Why not also include autism? I mean we have the data already, and these parents are paying for the service, why shouldn't we give them that information? And if we're doing all of that, why not also give them data on life expectancy and intelligence? Maybe physical traits - after all, they'd really prefer a blond haired, blue eyed child.
I mean, we already scan for down syndrome and the like. I don't think we're locked onto this slippery slope just from that.
I agree incentives are strong to go down the slope if we make parents pay for this data. But that's a choice we make: let's include disease screening as part of baseline healthcare, but make people pay (or otherwise regulate) if they want the additional data to screen for more precise things.
The discussion of what's disease will (remain) contentious. But I don't think it has to be slippery if we are careful about the incentives. Society at large seems capable of valuing diversity.
but make people pay [...] if they want the additional data to screen for more precise things.
Isn't that just worse than giving the data to everyone, though? The more expensive you make it, the more of an exclusively 'rich people' service it becomes. As if kids with rich parents don't already have enough advantages in life, let's make sure they're physically peak, too?
Yeah I'm far more on board with specific information being available to everyone and nothing more. Possibly also a "high risk, low occurrence" list of things like BRACA for people who have a family history of a high consequence disease causing mutation.
And I think disabled voices need prioritized in the discussion of what genes are included. As someone with genetic health issues, I don't trust those without them to make such decisions, especially after seeing how hearing parents of deaf children behave.
I mentioned regulation in that sentence and you '...'ed it out... Clearly I'm ok with putting in guard rails, and I see no practical barriers to doing so. Feels a little bad faith to ignore the counter argument that's right there.
(Severe edit cause I confused the conversation)
You said 'or otherwise regulate', not 'and regulate', so I logically assumed you were making two independent proposals and chose to respond to one of them, omitting the other for clarity.
I don't even think it's a counter-argument, really. As soon as prosperity becomes a factor, it's a "rich people only" feature, regardless of what other guardrails are in place.
Most (all?) healthcare has been rich people only before it became broadly available. Usually we don't accept that as a reason to ban it though; what's so different here?
Not in the UK, which this thread is about.
The NHS provides healthcare free at the point of service, for all.
Not everywhere is the United States of Fascist America.
I was under the impression that we still see UK folks flying across the world to skip queues, personalize medicine, and/or get treatments that haven't yet moved across the pond? Apologies for my ignorance.
Eugenics aren't suddenly okay if they're only accessible to some people. Healthcare on the other hand should be available to everyone but it's still a net positive even if it isn't available to everyone.
I guess my confusion is that some things in this thread are definitely not healthcare (blue eyes), and some definitely are (prevent sickle cell). I'd like the things that are to be available to all.
That has its own slope of discrimination from data due to being able to pay or not. If we determine a certain thing is okay ethically to screen for, anyone should be able to get it. Bad enough to have one gray area, we don't need a gradient of gray everywhere.
Seems fine to me; both show that the slippery slope really isn't inevitable, no?
Like with many many things in our world. This is fantastic! >!just as long as it's available for everyone and not here to make the rich richer.!<
Eeew how could you make this choice as a parent and not feel like an ingrown creep who wants a video game character creation tool where you can amuse yourself by crafting an object just as you like it instead of seeing a child as the gift of a living, breathing, unpredictable, utterly unique and esoteric human you have the privilege of witnessing endlessly surprise you?
This kind of attitude is ALREADY the source of countless children suffering from the selfish reductiveness of their parents' gaze, I dread that science is further enabling it.
They think of it as just giving their kid the best chances in life. They really need to listen to people like Vivian Wilson talk about what it's like to not live up to selected for traits in IVF.
We cannot ignore the fact that once the capacity for choice is introduced something essential is changed. I don't think there is an easy place to draw the line, I expect it is only degrees of gray past a certain point with preventing poor quality of life/debilitating disabilities but on the other hand it is very clear to me that there are very very very BAD places to draw the line and I absolutely do not trust the structures of society nor the choices of individuals not to violate basic human decency here. I am not an extremist on this, what I am is very worried about how I see a desire in people to choose their children in a way that would never be healthy even if they could.