Welcome to Womble Perspectives, where we explore a wide range of topics, from the latest legal updates to industry trends to the business of law. Our team of lawyers, professionals and occasional outside guests will take you through the most pressing issues facing businesses today and provide practical and actionable advice to help you navigate the ever changing legal landscape.
With a focus on innovation, collaboration and client service. We are committed to delivering exceptional value to our clients and to the communities we serve. And now our latest episode.
Welcome to a new episode of Womble Perspectives. Today, we’re looking at a provocative development in reproductive science: selecting embryos based on projected intelligence.
Picture this: a couple undergoing IVF is presented with three embryos. They’re told each has a different predicted IQ. Embryo 1, 2, or 3—who’s likely to be the smartest?
According to a recent Wall Street Journal piece, companies like Nucleus Genomics and Herasight are now offering genetic testing that claims to estimate IQ scores. These predictions are based on polygenic scoring—a method that analyzes multiple genes to forecast traits like cognitive ability.
Polygenic scores stem from genome-wide association studies, a scientific approach that’s only been around since 2005. So while the technology is advancing rapidly, it’s still relatively new and evolving.
But here’s the catch: genes don’t operate in isolation. One of the major concerns with polygenic scoring is something called “pleiotropy,” where a single genetic variant can influence multiple traits. That means selecting an embryo for high academic potential could unintentionally increase the risk of mental health conditions, like bipolar disorder. It’s a reminder that genetic traits are interconnected in ways we don’t fully understand.
And while the science is pushing boundaries, regulation hasn’t quite caught up. In the U.S., there’s currently no comprehensive oversight of polygenic embryo screening. These companies are operating in a largely unregulated space, which raises questions about the accuracy of their predictions and the potential for unintended consequences.
All of which raises the question: what happens if the predictions don’t pan out?
Imagine parents choose Embryo 1 based on a high IQ forecast, but the child later develops a condition linked to that same genetic profile. Legal claims could include negligence, breach of contract, or misrepresentation—whether accidental or intentional. To protect themselves, companies would need to show they followed scientific best practices, obtained informed consent, and clearly communicated the limitations and risks of their services.
Beyond legal liability, there’s a deeper ethical debate: how do we balance the rights of parents to make choices about their future children with the rights of those children to be born without undue genetic manipulation?
There’s also concern about creating genetic “classes”—where some individuals are perceived as superior based on selected traits. This raises equal protection issues, which laws like the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, or GINA, aim to address by preventing genetic bias.
Ultimately, this scenario highlights the complex and evolving landscape of genetic technology in reproductive decision-making. It’s a space where science, ethics, and law must work together to ensure responsible and equitable use.
Thanks for tuning in to Womble Perspectives. If this episode sparked your curiosity, don’t forget to subscribe and share.
Thank you for listening to Womble Perspectives. If you want to learn more about the topics discussed in this episode, please visit The Show Notes, where you can find links to related resources mentioned today. The Show Notes also have more information about our attorneys who provided today's insights, including ways to reach out to them.
Don't forget to subscribe via your podcast player of choice so that you never miss an episode. Thank you again for listening.
