Latest news with #TheDropout
Scientific American
28-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Scientific American
The Myth of the Designer Baby—Why ‘Genetic Optimization' Is More Hype Than Science
An understandable ethics outcry greeted the June announcement of a software platform that offers aspiring parents 'genetic optimization' of their embryos. Touted by Nucleus Genomics' CEO Kian Sadeghi, the $5,999 service, dubbed ' Nucleus Embryo,' promised optimization of traits like heart disease and cancer resistance, as well as intelligence, longevity, body mass index, baldness, eye color, hair color and left-handedness. It also promised to weed out what makes someone an alcoholic. That left one commentator, a venture capitalist, feeling ' nauseous.' Critics worried that it ' treats children as marketable goods.' More than one reference to ' designer babies ' and ' eugenics ' naturally followed. ' The GATTACA Future Is Here,' read one headline, referencing the classic sci-fi film from 1997 that imagined a dystopian future where genetically engineered 'Valids' reign supreme over the 'In-Valids' who were conceived the old-fashioned way. As professional bioethicists, we would have those same concerns—if Nucleus Embryo actually did what it claims. But it doesn't. The cinematic analogy to Nucleus Embryo isn't GATTACA. It's The Dropout —the 2022 miniseries about the rise and fall of Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. To be clear, there's no sign of the intentional deception that marked Theranos, but there are striking parallels in commercializing a research tool into something it isn't. Like Holmes, Sadeghi dropped out of a prestigious university to start his own biotech company, wooing enough Silicon Valley investors to launch his start-up. (Is it mandatory that all CEOs of biotech start-ups be college dropouts?) Like Holmes, Sadeghi draws on personal experience with the medical industry and its disappointing results as part of the inspirational narrative he uses to motivate his call for a health revolution. And like Holmes' Theranos, Sadeghi's Nucleus Embryo starts from existing technology, and uses that reliable foundation to then leap into the realm of fantastic claims that may entice venture capitalists and wealthy but naive customers but don't hold up to scrutiny when you start seriously poking around. Sadeghi sees it differently: 'Not that long ago, IVF once sparked fear and the stigma of test tube babies,' he said in a launch video aimed at would-be parents. 'Today's it's how one in 50 people in the U.S. are conceived. What was once controversial is now an everyday practice. The same is true with genetic optimization. The technology is now here, and it's here to stay.' But it's not. At least not the way Sadeghi depicts it: Parents-to-be have utilized preimplantation genetic diagnosis as part of in vitro fertilization for decades. After a set of fertilized embryos are created by IVF, a sample of DNA from each is extracted and tested. The parents can then select which embryo or embryos to implant based on their genetic profiles. The technology has been extraordinary for families plagued by hereditary diseases, such as Huntington's disease and Tay-Sachs disease—deadly conditions with known genetic causes. The technology can also show major chromosomal abnormalities that might make an embryo less likely to be viable if implanted. In more recent years, diagnostic services have expanded to test for other, rarer genetic conditions, which may not appear so frequently in families but are still debilitating. IVF and preimplantation genetic diagnosis are very expensive, and there are legitimate ethical concerns about who is able to access the technology and who is not. But there is little ethical handwringing about parents who use the technology to prevent transmitting a horrific disease to their child, or who opt not to implant an embryo that might not develop. But let's say a couple undergoing IVF doesn't just want a child without a deadly disease. Let's say they want a child who will be at low risk of cancer and heart disease, and also highly intelligent, slender, acne-free and destined for a long life. Enter Sadeghi's Nucleus Embryo. The genetic optimization software offers the parents an opportunity to test for all these traits and hundreds more in up to 20 embryos. This is where we enter Theranos territory. Unlike Huntington's disease and Tay-Sachs disease, there are no major genetic markers for many cancers or a truly definitive set for heart disease, let alone for intelligence, acne, body-mass index or longevity. Geneticists have known this for decades. Granted, there are hundreds of locations across the human genome where genetic variants have ever-so-slight positive or negative associations with those traits, and information about what's at each of those locations can be combined into one big measurement called a ' polygenic risk score,' which many geneticists use for research purposes. But the clinical value of polygenic risk scores for even straightforward medical conditions like asthma and stroke remains highly dubious. Most of the research so far has been done almost exclusively on people with Western European ancestry, so there's little guarantee that the predictions extrapolate to people with family trees that trace to different parts of the globe. And even for people of European ancestry, the predictive power of polygenic risk scores remains so severely limited that you won't find them part of standard clinical care anywhere in the world. The Washington Post noted "serious reservations' in medicine over such use earlier this month, and no peer-reviewed research supports it. Nucleus Genomics says it offers customers the ability to engage in genetic optimization because the potential parents can select among embryos based on the genetic information that Nucleus Embryo provides. But that isn't genetic optimization; no embryos or genetic material is optimized in some technologically innovative new way. It's just old-school preimplantation genetic diagnosis of fertilized embryos, irresponsibly expanded to offer prospective parents the illusion of control over things like IQ and mental health when the science isn't there to support the claims. The company also makes counseling about this mountain of confusing information optional, which is not optimal. Sadeghi's Nucleus Embryo is what happens when you Silicon-Valley-ify diagnostic genetics. Scientific reliability is swapped out in exchange for braggadocio about disrupting a medical status quo that may not even need it. Peer-reviewed research is less important than a punchy promotional video. Widespread uncertainty about the clinical value of polygenic risk scores gets buried under a snazzy app that lets you name each embryo you're testing. Established clinical guidelines about what traits warrant genetic testing and what don't are cast aside as affronts to your reproductive and capitalistic liberty: 'Some people don't think you should have this choice,' Sadeghi says. 'But it's not their choice to make. It's yours.' When confronted with the Theranos comparison in this essay, Nucleus Genomics and Sadeghi called it unfair, defending Nucleus Embryo as helping people, not harming them. We disagree but not for the reasons raised by the critics who have assumed that Nucleus Embryo works the way its marketing says it does. If Nucleus Embryo really let you optimize your potential child's intelligence or dial up her longevity, dial down her acne and steer clear of the dreaded left-handedness, then there would be some deep ethical questions to ask about designer babies, the legacy of eugenics and the marketization of children. But you can rest easy. This isn't GATTACA. There's no danger of the genetically optimized, unblemished, lithe and right-handed Valids ruling over the In-Valids, whose parents couldn't afford Nucleus Embryo. The real danger is that a bunch of wealthy parents-to-be who are too eager to control their children's biological future will shell out $5,999 for a product that offers no such control. Those parents might avoid perfectly healthy embryos, scared of implanting ones that don't appear to be sufficiently optimized. Or it could result in children being born to those parents and expected to live up to their purchased optimized future, but instead winding up very much like the variety of humans who proceeded them.
Mint
28-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Mint
Wicked auditions: Who tried out for the film before Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo were cast?
Wicked stars Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo may now be etched into fans' minds as Glinda and Elphaba, but they weren't the only names in the running. The film adaptation of Wicked has been years in the making, and before director Jon M. Chu locked in his final cast, a long list of celebrities - from pop singers to seasoned stage stars - gave it a shot. According to a report by People, the road to Oz saw some surprising names auditioning for roles but they didn't make the cut. Even Ariana Grande herself once considered Elphaba instead of Glinda. While filming The Dropout, Amanda Seyfried made time on weekends to audition for Glinda. 'I literally bent over backwards while playing the hardest role of my life,' she told Backstage in 2022. The Descendants star revealed in multiple interviews that she had long dreamt of playing Glinda. Renée Rapp, who stars in Mean Girls, auditioned for Glinda but had no hard feelings. 'Ariana's gonna be f------ amazing,' she said during Watch What Happens Live! in 2022. The Penguin actress, who also has a Grammy for Once, attempted Elphaba's iconic high note-but admitted on The Tonight Show in 2024 that she missed it during the audition. The Color Purple actor said in a 2024 YouTube video that Elphaba's story mirrored her own experiences growing up. She praised Erivo, calling her casting 'stellar.' Nick Jonas revealed on the Armchair Expert podcast that he auditioned for Fiyero-alongside his brother Joe. 'We both auditioned for the same role,' he said. Joe Jonas also confirmed he was in the running for Fiyero, supporting his brother during the process. 'It has to be one of us,' he remembered saying. A former Broadway Fiyero, McCartan said on his podcast The Stage Door in 2024, 'Jon M. Chu, you didn't cast me… but no hard feelings.' Sutherland got a 'double callback' for Fiyero and admitted on the Zach Sang Show in 2023 that he didn't expect to go that far. While she now stars as Glinda, Grande originally auditioned for Elphaba too. But it was her role as Glinda that won over the director. Erivo, who ultimately landed Elphaba, didn't need to fight hard once she auditioned-director Jon M. Chu said there was 'no denying it' when she walked in. While not part of the audition chaos, Bailey ultimately won the role of Fiyero, beating out several singers and actors who had vied for the part. Amanda Seyfried, Dove Cameron, and Renée Rapp all auditioned for Glinda but were not cast. No, Taylor Swift did not audition for the Wicked movie. Yes, Ariana Grande auditioned for both Glinda and Elphaba before landing the role of Glinda.
Express Tribune
26-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Express Tribune
Amanda Seyfried reflects on her challenging Wicked audition experience
Amanda Seyfried has once again opened up about her intense audition process for Wicked, confirming that she auditioned six times for the role of Glinda and describing the experience as both grueling and transformative. Speaking on the June 19 episode of Backstage's In the Envelope podcast, the Oscar-nominated actress revealed that the auditions took place in 2021 while she was filming Hulu's The Dropout, a demanding schedule she nonetheless tried to navigate in pursuit of the part. 'I auditioned like six times for Wicked. I barely had time to do it, but I made it work,' she said. 'I worked my ass off for years and years on that music.' Seyfried shared that she trained with a vocal coach, attended weekend auditions, and recorded performances including the number 'Popular' which she submitted to director Jon M. Chu. She also previously recalled, during a Happy Sad Confused podcast appearance earlier this year, singing with Cynthia Erivo during one of the final stages of the process. 'That was a moment,' Seyfried said. 'Even though I didn't get the role, I felt the strongest I ever have vocally.' Despite not being cast, the Mamma Mia! star emphasized that the process was creatively rewarding. 'I didn't get the part, but I came out a better singer,' she told Backstage. 'It gave me the confidence I needed.' Ultimately, the coveted role of Glinda went to pop star and Broadway alum Ariana Grande, who also auditioned five times. Cynthia Erivo was cast as Elphaba. Both actresses were officially announced in late 2021. .
Yahoo
23-03-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Amanda Seyfried Seemingly Just Identified Herself As One Of The People That Cynthia Erivo Shaded In That 'Unprofessional' Comment About Her 'Wicked' Auditions
By now, we all know Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande were very glad to be cast together as Elphaba and Glinda in the Wicked movie. And while the two were promoting the film, you might recall that Cynthia made a pretty shady dig about the other actors she auditioned with during the lengthy search for Glinda. Kevin Mazur / Getty Images for National Board of Review, Universal Pictures /Courtesy Everett Collection Despite both landing the roles, Cynthia and Ariana never actually read together during the audition process, which is kind of wild when you think about it. So, when asked about her reaction to Ari's eventual casting during an interview with the New York Times in November, Cynthia said: 'Thank goodness, because it was not the two ladies I was auditioning with.' At the time, fans were losing it over Cynthia's shade. Many couldn't decide if it was 'classless' and 'unprofessional' or just hilarious diva behavior. Criticizing the comment, one X user wrote: 'Jokes aside, considering this movie is about female friendship this is a really bitchy thing to say. Like imagine how those 2 women feel reading this.' And, of course, the main thing on everyone's mind was the identity of the 'two ladies' she sang with. From Dove Cameron to the Jonas Brothers, there were tons of reports about the famous folks vying for roles in the Wicked movie, and one person whose name came up a lot was Amanda Seyfried. For years and years, Amanda had talked publicly about her lifelong desire to play Glinda, and in 2022, she revealed that she auditioned for the movie adaptation of Wicked at the same time she was playing Elizabeth Holmes in The Dropout. Universal Pictures / Courtesy Everett Collection, Beth Dubber / ©Hulu / Courtesy Everett Collection And now, in a new appearance on the Happy Sad Confused podcast, Amanda shared more details about the intense audition process — notably revealing that she was, in fact, one of the ladies to sing with Cynthia. 'I knew Wicked was coming, so I was able to really prepare, and I'm telling you, I've never felt that solid in my voice than I did at the auditions,' she told host Josh Horowitz, 'and that's kind of what I got out of it.' Amanda obviously made peace with the fact that she didn't get the role and has since praised Ariana's Oscar-nominated performance in the film. Speaking in her new interview, she emphasized what a valuable experience the audition process was despite it not having the outcome she would've hoped for. 'I do, again, think everything happens for a reason,' she said before adding: 'I also got to sing with Cynthia, and that was a moment in itself.' Well, there you have it. The only question remains: Who was the other actor that sang with Cynthia? For what it's worth, Renée Rapp said that she auditioned to play Glinda, although she didn't specify that she actually sang with Cynthia, so who knows? Give me your guesses in the comments! More on this Amanda Seyfried Addressed That Viral Video Of Her Singing 'Popular' From 'Wicked' After Losing The Role Of Glinda To Ariana GrandeEllen Durney · Dec. 17, 2024 Amanda Seyfried Spoke About Losing Out On A 'Wicked' Movie Role To Ariana Grande And Said She 'Bent Over Backwards' To Audition For It While Playing Elizabeth Holmes In 'The Dropout'Ellen Durney · July 21, 2022 People Are Applauding Amanda Seyfried For Being Open About Her Natural Skin In A Makeup-Free TikTokStephanie Soteriou · March 20, 2025
Al Bawaba
22-03-2025
- Entertainment
- Al Bawaba
Amanda Seyfried clears up Wicked audition speculation with Cynthia Erivo & reflects on missed Marvel role
ALBAWABA - Amanda Seyfried may have resolved months of fan conjecture regarding Cynthia Erivo, 38, and Wicked auditions shade. On the Happy Sad Confused podcast, Amanda said, 'I knew Wicked was coming, so I was able to really prepare, and I'm telling you, I've never felt so solid in my voice as I did during the auditions.' 'I also got to sing with Cynthia [Erivo], and that was a moment in itself,' Amanda remarked on the show. Cynthia told The New York Times in November that Ariana Grande, 31, playing Glinda, was 'no surprise whatsoever.' "I said, "Thank God.'" Cynthia said, 'Thank goodness, because it was not the two ladies that I was auditioning with.' Ariana recounted. TORONTO, ONTARIO - FEBRUARY 25: Amanda Seyfried (Photo by Jeremy Chan / Getty Images via AFP) In 2022, Seyfried, 39, revealed that she had auditioned for Glinda, but she didn't say if she auditioned with Cynthia. She auditioned while filming The Dropout, in which she played disgraced scientist Elizabeth Holmes and earned an Emmy. Amanda accepts her Glinda role denial. She even praised Ariana's performance. 'I do, again, think everything occurs for a reason,' she remarked. 'I also got to sing with Cynthia, and that was a moment in itself.' Glinda has also mentioned Renee Rapp, but she hasn't confirmed it. Amanda declined the role of Gamora in Guardians of the Galaxy with Chris Pratt almost a decade ago. The actress spoke about her career blessings while promoting her new Peacock series, Long Bright River. When asked about ones that almost happened, Seyfried acknowledged the potential to star in James Gunn's 2014 Marvel Comics-based superhero flick. NEW YORK, NEW YORK - FEBRUARY 10: Amanda Seyfried (Photo by Dimitrios Kambouris / Getty Images via AFP) In a March 20 Happy Sad Confused podcast interview, she admits to feeling risky when offered the part. "Appearing in the first Marvel movie to bomb isn't good for your career," she told Josh Horowitz. The film's talking tree and raccoon made me think it would be Marvel's first disaster and Chris Pratt and I would never collaborate again. Was wrong. The Allentown, Pennsylvania native never considered playing Gamora, played by Zoe Saldaña, a risky choice from Gunn, who co-wrote and directed the production. '[He's] a genius, and he's fun, and he's a brilliant director, and he can make anything work,' she remarked. But I was too terrified. I would rather not suffer for work in a dangerous professional stage. Guardians of the Galaxy grossed $773.4 million worldwide and cost $195.9 million to make. Despite the success of superhero films, Seyfried remains true to her instincts and does not play the part. 'I had done some green screen stuff, and it wasn't my cup of tea, and I don't regret any decision,' she said. In that moment, I decided to prioritize my preferences. This decision was excellent for me then, and it continues to be excellent for me now. The Mean Girls actress couldn't be happier for everyone in Guardians of the Galaxy, believing everything turned out as planned. I think Zoe Saldaña, Chris, and everyone involved in the movie are having a wonderful time, and it works for them, which I love. I appreciate that I trusted my instincts. When Seyfried thought she had succeeded as an actor, she reflected on her career since 1996. 'I realized I had entered into a sphere when I was in Mama Mia!' she told Horowitz. 'When Mama Mia! was big, I had additional opportunities.' She added, 'Over the years, the opportunities were still there, but they changed as you did, based on your decisions. Additionally, you're aging and evolving your preferences. I'm happy to still have many possibilities, and now I feel like I've established a place where people trust and appreciate me as an actor.
