IVF parents are spending thousands to predict their babies' chances of having Alzheimer's, cancer and heart disease
Maybe she's born with it, maybe it's … genetic optimization?
Prospective parents using in vitro fertilization (IVF) will soon be able to select embryos based on their potential risk for diseases — including illnesses that develop later in life — thanks to a groundbreaking $5,999 service announced this week by a US biotech company.
'Before there's a heartbeat, there's DNA,' Kian Sadeghi, founder and chief executive of Nucleus Genomics, said in a statement. 'One file containing DNA and genetic markers can tell you more about your baby's future than any other test a doctor could possibly run at this stage.'
4 Supporters say screening could prevent chronic illness, but critics warn it may fuel stigma and inequality.
New Africa – stock.adobe.com
What is IVF?
The popular fertility treatment involves removing eggs from a woman's ovaries and fertilizing them with sperm in a lab.
The resulting embryo — which could be frozen or fresh — is placed into the uterus, where it hopefully implants in the uterine wall and sparks a pregnancy.
Before implantation, many IVF clinics already screen embryos for genetic abnormalities — such as extra chromosomes or gene mutations — that can lead to failed implantations, miscarriages, birth defects or inherited disorders.
But the first-of-its-kind service from Nucleus Genomics takes things a step further.
Build-a-baby
The company just launched Nucleus Embryo, a new software platform that lets potential parents dig deep into the full genetic blueprint of their embryos before choosing which one to implant.
4 The number of Americans using IVF has skyrocketed over the last decade.
nevodka.com – stock.adobe.com
The tool lets IVF patients compare the DNA of up to 20 embryos, screening them for more than 900 conditions — including Alzheimer's, Type 2 diabetes, heart disease and several forms of cancer.
It doesn't stop there.
The program also flags potential mental health conditions like depression and schizophrenia and even ranks cognitive traits like IQ.
Parents can also get a look at cosmetic and physical features, from height, baldness and BMI to eye and hair color.
The company isn't promising perfection.
Instead, the software generates a so-called polygenic risk score that will give parents the probability of how likely it is an embryo might develop certain traits or diseases.
4 Many IVF clinics already screen for certain genetic risk factors, like an abnormal number of chromosomes.
Charlize Davids/peopleimages.com – stock.adobe.com
Ultimately, it's up to the parents to decide which qualities matter most to them. For those looking to decode the results, genetic counseling sessions are available.
'Lifespan has dramatically increased in the last 150 years,' Sadeghi told the Wall Street Journal. 'DNA testing to predict and reduce chronic disease can make it happen again.'
A new era of reproductive tech
The practice, known as polygenic embryo screening, is already highly controversial in the medical world, according to a report published by Harvard Law School's Petrie-Flom Center.
Critics warn that allowing parents to screen embryos for risks like depression or diabetes could deepen stigma and discrimination against people living with those conditions.
Meanwhile, disability advocates argue it promotes the harmful idea that disability is something to be fixed, not a natural part of human diversity.
And when it comes to choosing embryos for traits like intelligence or athleticism, critics say we're sliding into designer baby territory — a modern form of eugenics that favors the rich, reinforcing social and healthcare inequalities.
4 Few Americans approve of using the technology to predict traits unrelated to disease.
Gemyful – stock.adobe.com
Still, the public appears open to some aspects of the tech.
A 2023 survey found that 77% of Americans support using it to screen embryos for the likelihood of developing certain physical conditions, while 72% back screening for mental health risks.
Proponents argue it's no different from vaccination — a preventive tool, not a judgment on those with the condition.
But when it comes to non-medical traits, support drops fast: only 36% back screening embryos for behavioral traits and just 30% for physical features like height or eye color.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - How thousands of unreviewed ingredients got into our food — and what FDA can do about it
At least 1,000 ingredients in food products on our grocery store shelves have never been checked for safety by the Food and Drug Administration. Dozens have raised serious safety concerns among experts. How did the FDA allow this? The answer can be found in the agency's lax interpretation of a little-known legal designation that lets companies decide for themselves if ingredients in their products are safe. Fortunately, there are steps the agency can take right now to stem the flow of potentially unsafe ingredients into our food supply. Environmental Defense Fund outlined these steps in a letter we recently sent to the agency, but first let's take a closer look at how we got here. 'Generally Recognized as Safe' is a designation Congress created in 1958 to allow commonly used food ingredients to bypass the FDA's pre-market safety review process. It was meant for food substances — such as oils, vinegar, baking soda and common spices — that were widely considered safe due to their long history of everyday use. Since 1958, this status has been coopted to cover a universe of foods that extends far beyond its original intent. According to FDA regulations, a chemical can receive the designation if experts widely agree that scientific evidence shows its use to be safe. But because 'Generally Recognized as Safe' wasn't meant for newer ingredients, Congress allowed ingredients so designated to skip the FDA's premarket approval process — despite requiring similar evidence for other additives. Under the agency's current interpretation, companies can designate the use of a substance as safe and take products with that substance to market without informing the FDA or the public of its decision. While companies may voluntarily submit a notice to FDA offering safety evidence, they are not required to — and often don't. Our organization estimated that manufacturers have notified FDA of fewer than half of the ingredients they market as safe under the 'Generally Recognized' standard. Companies that do bother to submit a notice to the FDA are free to withdraw it at any point and take their product to market, provided they can cite evidence of its safe use. But this 'evidence' is often far from independent. Companies can, and often do, enlist their own employees or handpicked consultants to conduct their safety assessments. The result is a process riddled with conflicts of interest that lets unsafe foods into Americans' homes. We analyzed 'Generally Recognized as Safe' notices received by the FDA, obtained via a Freedom of Information request, and found that of the 1,163 submitted by companies between 1997 and April 2024, 192 were later withdrawn, with safety concerns cited in at least a dozen cases. We also identified 31 ingredients that companies have advertised to be recognized as safe, such as in press releases, trade publications and on their own websites (see the Appendix of our letter). However, we were unable to find the scientific evidence required under this standard to demonstrate these ingredients are commonly regarded as safe among experts. This raises red flags that FDA should be taking seriously. Although a comprehensive fix to the 'Generally Recognized' standard will require legislation from Congress, there are significant steps the FDA can take right away to ensure a more rigorous determination process that better protects Americans' health. Starting today, the FDA can use existing authority to remove safe designations from ingredients it deems unsafe and take them off the market. It can also notify manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers that the substance is no longer recognized as safe. In addition, the FDA can enforce the requirement that companies base safety designations on publicly available data. Although this won't curtail companies' ability to self-declare substances as safe, it will require those who do to be transparent in citing their evidence. Third, the FDA can enforce the requirement that safety assessments consider vital health information such as a substance's dietary sources, potential cancer risks and the cumulative health effects of similar substances. Finally, the FDA can make companies revise and resubmit their data for review when they submit 'Generally Recognized as Safe' notices that fail to comply with the criteria. The 'Generally Recognized as Safe' designation is far from a perfect system, but it can work better if it is interpreted and enforced more comprehensively. If the FDA is serious about protecting public health, it should start by fully exercising the tools already at its disposal. Maria Doa is senior director at the Chemicals Policy at Environmental Defense Fund. Maricel Maffini is an independent consultant focused on human and environmental health and chemical safety. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
4 hours ago
- The Hill
How thousands of unreviewed ingredients got into our food — and what FDA can do about it
At least 1,000 ingredients in food products on our grocery store shelves have never been checked for safety by the Food and Drug Administration. Dozens have raised serious safety concerns among experts. How did the FDA allow this? The answer can be found in the agency's lax interpretation of a little-known legal designation that lets companies decide for themselves if ingredients in their products are safe. Fortunately, there are steps the agency can take right now to stem the flow of potentially unsafe ingredients into our food supply. Environmental Defense Fund outlined these steps in a letter we recently sent to the agency, but first let's take a closer look at how we got here. 'Generally Recognized as Safe' is a designation Congress created in 1958 to allow commonly used food ingredients to bypass the FDA's pre-market safety review process. It was meant for food substances — such as oils, vinegar, baking soda and common spices — that were widely considered safe due to their long history of everyday use. Since 1958, this status has been coopted to cover a universe of foods that extends far beyond its original intent. According to FDA regulations, a chemical can receive the designation if experts widely agree that scientific evidence shows its use to be safe. But because 'Generally Recognized as Safe' wasn't meant for newer ingredients, Congress allowed ingredients so designated to skip the FDA's premarket approval process — despite requiring similar evidence for other additives. Under the agency's current interpretation, companies can designate the use of a substance as safe and take products with that substance to market without informing the FDA or the public of its decision. While companies may voluntarily submit a notice to FDA offering safety evidence, they are not required to — and often don't. Our organization estimated that manufacturers have notified FDA of fewer than half of the ingredients they market as safe under the 'Generally Recognized' standard. Companies that do bother to submit a notice to the FDA are free to withdraw it at any point and take their product to market, provided they can cite evidence of its safe use. But this 'evidence' is often far from independent. Companies can, and often do, enlist their own employees or handpicked consultants to conduct their safety assessments. The result is a process riddled with conflicts of interest that lets unsafe foods into Americans' homes. We analyzed 'Generally Recognized as Safe' notices received by the FDA, obtained via a Freedom of Information request, and found that of the 1,163 submitted by companies between 1997 and April 2024, 192 were later withdrawn, with safety concerns cited in at least a dozen cases. We also identified 31 ingredients that companies have advertised to be recognized as safe, such as in press releases, trade publications and on their own websites (see the Appendix of our letter). However, we were unable to find the scientific evidence required under this standard to demonstrate these ingredients are commonly regarded as safe among experts. This raises red flags that FDA should be taking seriously. Although a comprehensive fix to the 'Generally Recognized' standard will require legislation from Congress, there are significant steps the FDA can take right away to ensure a more rigorous determination process that better protects Americans' health. Starting today, the FDA can use existing authority to remove safe designations from ingredients it deems unsafe and take them off the market. It can also notify manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers that the substance is no longer recognized as safe. In addition, the FDA can enforce the requirement that companies base safety designations on publicly available data. Although this won't curtail companies' ability to self-declare substances as safe, it will require those who do to be transparent in citing their evidence. Third, the FDA can enforce the requirement that safety assessments consider vital health information such as a substance's dietary sources, potential cancer risks and the cumulative health effects of similar substances. Finally, the FDA can make companies revise and resubmit their data for review when they submit 'Generally Recognized as Safe' notices that fail to comply with the criteria. The 'Generally Recognized as Safe' designation is far from a perfect system, but it can work better if it is interpreted and enforced more comprehensively. If the FDA is serious about protecting public health, it should start by fully exercising the tools already at its disposal. Maria Doa is senior director at the Chemicals Policy at Environmental Defense Fund. Maricel Maffini is an independent consultant focused on human and environmental health and chemical safety.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Eating more of these plant-based foods could lower your risk of heart disease and diabetes
Eating more nuts, fruits, vegetables, and whole grains may help to reduce your risk of contracting deadly heart disease and type 2 diabetes. Researchers said this week that people who consumed more phytosterols — a natural compound found in plant foods — significantly delayed both of the conditions. Furthermore, eating more of them was linked to reduced inflammation, markers of better insulin regulation, and differences in the gut microbiome that may contribute to healthy metabolism. The study was not designed to confirm why this is the case, but the researchers said their findings strengthen the evidence. More than 7000,000 Americans die from heart disease and some 101,000 die from diabetes. 'Our findings support the dietary recommendation of adhering to healthy plant-based dietary patterns that are rich in vegetables, fruits, nuts and whole grains,' Dr. Fenglei Wang, a research associate at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, said in a statement. 'These findings can help people make informed dietary choices.' Wang presented the observational findings on Tuesday at the flagship annual meeting of the American Society for Nutrition. Some phytosterol-rich foods include corn, almonds, broccoli, bananas, and wheat bread. Previous research had found that eating foods with phytosterols can help to improve peoples' health by lowering bad cholesterol, and may reduce the risk of cancer. However, most clinical trials have used high doses of the phytosterols that were beyond what someone might get through just their own diet. The new research is the first to show the benefits as part of a normal diet. To reach these conclusions, Wang and his colleagues looked at data from more than 200,000 American adults that were a part of three studies. All of the participants were nurses or other health professionals and nearly 80 percent were women. Over the course of 36 years, more than 20,000 of them developed type 2 diabetes and nearly 16,000 developed heart disease. The participants' answers to food-frequency questionnaires allowed the researchers to estimate their individual intake of phytosterols, as well as three individual phytosterols known as β-sitosterol, campesterol and stigmasterol. Those who ate the most consumed the most phytosterol had about four to five servings of vegetables, two to three servings of fruits, two servings of whole grains, and half a serving of nuts each day. This made them 9 percent less likely to develop heart disease and 8 percent less likely to develop type 2 diabetes compares to those in the bottom fifth percentage for phytosterol intake, the research showed. Looking at the individual phytosterols, similar associations were observed for β-sitosterol. But, the same was not true for campesterol or stigmasterol. In addition, the researchers analyzed blood samples, looking at the products of metabolism — also known as metabolites — from more than 11,000 people and other metabolic biomarkers in blood samples from over 40,000 participants. They found that phytosterol and β-sitosterol levels were tied to favorable metabolites and metabolic markers relevant to heart disease and diabetes. That signaled a possible reason for the association. 'Our clinical biomarker and metabolomic results suggest the involvement of insulin activity, inflammation and the metabolism of metabolites associated with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease,' said Wang. 'This suggests that phytosterol might reduce risk by alleviating insulin resistance and inflammation.' In a group of just 465 participants, they examined the gut microbiome, or the trillions of microscopic organisms inside the intestines. They found several microbial species and related enzymes linked to higher intake of phytosterols that may affect the production of metabolites associated with a lower risk of diseases. 'We found that the gut microbiome might play a role in the beneficial associations. Some species, such as Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, carry enzymes that could help degrade phytosterol, potentially influencing host metabolism,' Wang said.
