Advances in the world of embryonic screening: The company Nucleus Genomics announced the launch of Nucleus Embryo yesterday, which they bill as "the first genetic optimization software that lets parents pursuing IVF [in vitro fertilization] see and understand the complete genetic profile of each of their embryos." It's a dashboard, essentially, that lets parents see the full analysis of their frozen embryos—each embryo's probability of having some 900 diseases, as well as information about their appearance (male pattern baldness, eye color, hair color), IQ, and more. You can now compare each embryo to the others, and rank order your preferences for which ones you implant, if you so choose. You can know which embryos are more likely to have seasonal allergies, asthma, restless leg syndrome, schizophrenia, cystic fibrosis, alcoholism, celiac disease, and more.
"Some people don't think you should have access to the choice Nucleus Embryo empowers you to make," writes Nucleus CEO Kian Sadeghi. "Here's the thing. It's not their choice to make. It's yours." (For the price of $6,000, of course.)
Competitors like Orchid offer essentially the same thing. What's discussed a bit less in all the marketing copy is that you're not genetically tweaking the embryos, you're just discarding the ones that don't meet your specifications. And, look, I don't mean to let my Catholic show too much, but I have a hard time getting excited about a Gattaca future—as do many others who've been following the developments in the world of embryonic screening:
This level of embryo selection is mostly a cope for high income type As who want a single child
The error bars on genomic analysis wrt IQ are such that choosing any two of these embryos at random is more likely to get you a higher IQ kid than choosing the single "best" embryo https://t.co/elnKu8a5ZQ
— Mason (@webdevMason) June 5, 2025
"this announcement also marks the first time in history a company has partnered with a couple to help them optimize their embryos based on intelligence."
Since these are all just statistical predictions, what happens if your kid turns out dumb anyways? Do you get a refund? https://t.co/1g8imuMTGD
— Luke Metro (@luke_metro) June 4, 2025
Other folks within Silicon Valley are bullish on this, and interested in investing in gene-editing technology, applying it to embryos specifically. So expect this to be something we hear a lot more about in the future:
If you're a gene editing scientist or comp bio/ML engineer interested in the topic of embryo editing, I'm hosting a dinner in the bay area soon with a few folks.
I think the time is right for the defining company in the US to be built in this area, approaching it in a… pic.twitter.com/4BKfIUijn3
— Brian Armstrong (@brian_armstrong) June 2, 2025
Some people surely believe this is a means to reduce suffering, and that it is better to eliminate embryos that would be possibly destined for great suffering than to allow them to continue to grow and develop into children, and then adults, who would incur extreme hardship (like a life with cystic fibrosis or Tay-Sachs disease). To me, this argument is less compelling, because I don't believe it is the parent's role to pick and choose which children are "desirable" and to discard those with traits that might lead to suffering. I also fear the use of this technology as a means of indulging parental hubris, a belief that you are responsible not just for your child's care and safekeeping and spiritual growth—no matter what is thrown their way—but that you may also craft them into perfect beings who become as attractive as can be, as smart as can be. To some degree, parents do this once the children are outside the womb—they provide them with the best opportunities to grow and learn and foster their natural talents—but I do wonder how it might psychologically alter a child to know that they were selected for life due to their potential for excellence vs. their innate value.
But, honestly, my own personal beliefs on this are beside the point. Many libertarians probably disagree with me, and see this technology as a massive expansion of human choice applied to the most important realm. This future is here; public support for IVF is already extremely high, and genetic screening is already routine in pregnancy. It's not crazy to theorize that, as the price tag continues to drop as the marketplace becomes more crowded, this type of screening will catch on for those who use IVF, and that some people—perhaps the most type-A parents with the most disposable income—will even be spurred to choose IVF creation of babies vs. the good old-fashioned method, as it gives them greater control over outcomes (but, if we're being honest, less fun).
In other words, we're a far cry from parents trying to optimize their kids' intellect by letting them watch Baby Mozart; techniques for optimization are much more sophisticated now, and a whole bunch of ethical quandaries will come along with that. Expect progressives to object to a society increasingly bifurcated based on ability, corresponding to the disposable income of one's parents, and expect conservatives to object on pro-life grounds. Though, interestingly, maybe the MAGA types—who voted for "the fertilization president" (an image I still hope to get out of my head)—and the Silicon Valley types who are broadly supportive of this technology will sort of join forces with IVF-approving normies and it will all become broadly accepted. It's hard to say how it all plays politically.
Another Trump travel ban: On Wednesday, President Donald Trump banned citizens of 12 countries—Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen—from entering the United States. He also announced restrictions on travel for citizens of Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela, but stopped short of a full ban. People from those countries will not be allowed to come to the United States permanently or get tourist or student visas, but will be allowed to enter under certain circumstances.
This is more extensive than the so-called Muslim travel ban of his first term, and it's not totally clear what the specific reasoning is for barring citizens of these countries from visiting or living in the United States. The attack on Jews in Boulder, Colorado, by an Egyptian man who had overstayed his visa and was thus here illegally, "underscored the extreme dangers" posed by the entry of foreigners, said Trump. Oddly, though, he didn't announce any restrictions on travel by Egyptians.
Scenes from New York: I don't believe this statistic is correct, and I am also very curious about where all our taxpayer dollars are going if they're not going to food assistance for poor kids.
Articles like this one claim that "an estimated 1 in 4 children don't have enough to eat—a 46% increase over pre-pandemic numbers" and cite the nonprofit Feeding America. When I follow the link, there's nothing to substantiate this number, and this X user is roughly correct that a huge chunk—some estimates say more like 43 percent—of NYC elementary schoolers are overweight.
Let me get this straight: NYC has 1.5M kids, maybe 1M are considered "lower-income". And 50% of those are overweight or obese. You're telling me the other 50% are going to bed hungry? A third of all kids in NYC? The math isn't mathing. https://t.co/1W9d3EDZ6W
— Circe (@vocalcry) June 5, 2025
QUICK HITS
- "Many today insist that it is critical—even morally required—that we use the word 'genocide' to describe Israel's war in Gaza. No other term will do. Those not joining the chorus are allegedly complicit in genocide. Those questioning the nature of the accusation are labeled genocide deniers," write Norman J.W. Goda and Jeffrey Herf for The Washington Post. "Why this insistence? Efforts to delegitimize Israel as colonial and racist began before the state was declared in 1948. Genocide, meanwhile, is the crime of crimes; a state committing genocide is forever illegitimate. Given this history and gravity, we should pose some questions. Israel's war against Hamas in the urban environments of Gaza has led to thousands of civilian casualties. But is genocide really the correct way to describe the war?"
- "Yunqing Jian, 33, and Zunyong Liu, 34, citizens of the People's Republic of China, were charged in a criminal complaint with conspiracy, smuggling goods into the United States, false statements, and visa fraud, announced United States Attorney Jerome F. Gorgon, Jr.," per a press release from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Michigan. "The FBI arrested Jian in connection with allegations related to Jian's and Liu's smuggling into America a fungus called Fusarium graminearum, which scientific literature classifies as a potential agroterrorism weapon. This noxious fungus causes 'head blight,' a disease of wheat, barley, maize, and rice, and is responsible for billions of dollars in economic losses worldwide each year. Fusarium graminearum's toxins cause vomiting, liver damage, and reproductive defects in humans and livestock." But it sounds like the scientists mostly failed to file the proper paperwork; will be interesting to see what more comes out about this case.
- Classic Trump administration:
Cuban rapper El Funky supports Trump, wrote an anti-communist protest song that became a hit on the Island and that Marco Rubio praised. He just received notice this month that he has to leave the United States. pic.twitter.com/PN2oymajoO
— Eric Michael Garcia (@EricMGarcia) June 4, 2025
- Hell yeah, New Jersey! With age, I conquer my animus and grow in respect for that scrappy little state:
NEW ODD LOTS:
Jersey City saw its housing supply boom over the last decade. @tracyalloway and I talked its mayor, @StevenFulop (candidate in next week's Dem gubernatorial primary) about how it happened, its replicability, and his goals in Trenton. https://t.co/85KxlSuzdf
— Joe Weisenthal (@TheStalwart) June 5, 2025
The post The <i>Gattaca</i> Future Is Here appeared first on Reason.com.
