Heliospect Genomics promises genetic selection for intelligence
A US startup, Heliospect Genomics, is offering wealthy couples the ability to screen their embryos for traits like IQ, height, and even the risk of mental illness, sparking debates about the ethics of genetic enhancement. The company, according to undercover video footage, has marketed its services to more than a dozen couples undergoing IVF, charging up to $50,000 for the analysis of 100 embryos.
Experimental technology and ethical questions
The recordings, obtained by the campaign group Hope Not Hate, reveal Heliospect’s use of polygenic scoring techniques to rank embryos based on predicted intelligence and other desirable traits. An employee described the ability to screen for “IQ and the other traits that everybody wants,” while promising an average IQ gain of more than six points for selected embryos.
Heliospect’s service, still in development, is marketed under US law, where regulations on embryology are more permissive than in other countries. In the UK, for instance, selecting embryos based on traits like IQ is illegal. Despite this, the company’s methods have raised alarm among experts, who worry about the moral implications of such technology.
Dagan Wells, a professor of reproductive genetics at the University of Oxford, voiced concerns: “Is this a test too far? Do we really want it? This debate hasn’t fully engaged the public yet.”
Genetic selection and social inequality
Bioethicists have also raised concerns that Heliospect’s offering could normalize the idea of “superior” genetics, reinforcing social inequality. Katie Hasson, associate director at the Center for Genetics and Society, warned, “This reinforces the belief that inequality comes from biology rather than social causes.”
The company’s CEO, Michael Christensen, has a different view. In a video call with an undercover researcher, he boasted about the potential benefits of genetic selection: “Everyone can have all the children they want, disease-free, smart, and healthy; it’s going to be great.”
Heliospect’s technology relies on data from the UK Biobank, a taxpayer-funded repository of genetic material from 500,000 British volunteers. The company said it uses this data to improve predictions of complex traits. However, critics have questioned whether UK Biobank’s ethical criteria are rigorous enough, given the revelations about Heliospect’s embryo screening methods.
Legal and regulatory challenges
Although Heliospect claims to operate within legal frameworks, the company’s promotion of embryo screening for traits like IQ pushes the boundaries of reproductive ethics. Heliospect has helped select embryos for five couples, with some babies already on the way, according to Christensen.
In the UK, fertility treatments are strictly regulated, with preimplantation genetic testing limited to serious health conditions. Heliospect suggested that UK couples could bypass these regulations by either sending genetic data overseas or traveling to the US for IVF.
Stanford University bioethicist Hank Greely noted that the use of UK Biobank data for such purposes highlights a potential gap in ethical oversight, stating, “UK Biobank and the UK government may need to impose new restrictions.”
The future of genetic enhancement
Heliospect’s vision extends far beyond IQ screening. In the future, Christensen speculated, the company could develop tools for selecting embryos based on personality traits like Machiavellianism or creativity. While the company has denied plans to test for “dark triad” traits or beauty, these possibilities have stirred significant controversy in the scientific and bioethical communities.
Jonathan Anomaly, a senior advisor to Heliospect and a proponent of “liberal eugenics,” defended the technology, suggesting that parents should be free to use genetic tools to improve their children’s prospects. Anomaly, who has published extensively on genetic selection, insists that these ideas should not be confused with coercive state-sponsored eugenics.
The ethical debate surrounding Heliospect’s embryo screening technology is far from settled, and as genomic prediction tools advance, questions about the societal impact of these technologies will only intensify.