Emerging technologies allowing prospective parents to genetically “score” embryos before implantation are currently unreliable, but their potential to exacerbate existing social inequities is very real. Companies now offer polygenic embryo selection – a process using genetic profiles to predict the likelihood of traits or diseases in future children – though its current accuracy is questionable.
While the technology is far from perfected, experts warn that improvements in accuracy over the next few decades will make a wider range of characteristics viable targets for selection. This raises critical concerns about unequal access and the biological reinforcement of structural inequalities.
The High Cost of Genetic Advantage
As it stands, polygenic embryo selection will likely remain a luxury available only to those who can afford in vitro fertilization (IVF). A single IVF cycle costs $15,000–$20,000, with many couples requiring multiple attempts. The additional cost of genomic analysis—$1,000 to $50,000 per embryo—further restricts access. Public health insurance (like Medicaid) does not cover IVF at all.
This economic barrier alone ensures that the benefits of embryo selection will initially flow to wealthier populations, potentially widening existing gaps in health and opportunity. The technology is also more effective in individuals of European ancestry due to the “portability problem” in genomic analysis.
The Risk of Entrenched Disparities
If left unregulated, unequal access to embryo selection could create a new source of genetic structural inequality. For example, if the technology becomes more effective for certain groups while remaining less so for others (such as Pacific Islander Americans who already face higher rates of chronic disease), it could lead to systematically higher genetic risk within marginalized communities.
Similarly, in education, if wealthier families use embryo selection to reduce the likelihood of learning disabilities in their children, existing educational disparities could worsen. These genetic differences, whether real or perceived, could be passed onto future generations, compounding over time.
The Power of Perception: Myths and Reality
Even inaccurate embryo selection can reinforce harmful myths about genetic differences between groups. People may treat children born via the technology differently, regardless of whether they are objectively superior. This perception alone could justify discrimination based on genetic origin.
The Potential Upside: Reducing Human Suffering
Despite the risks, polygenic embryo selection could also reduce human suffering. Traits like chronic pain have a strong genetic component, and accurate selection could help reduce future rates of debilitating conditions. The challenge lies in determining when and for which traits the technology is ethically permissible.
Ultimately, the future of embryo selection hinges on careful regulation and equitable access. If unchecked, it risks deepening existing inequalities and creating a new genetic divide.
The looming question isn’t whether this technology will work, but who will benefit and at what cost to the rest of society.
