‘Unproven and unethical’: Ethicists raise questions about human embryo risk analysis tests

Credit: STAT News
Credit: STAT News

Experts have warned against the “unproven” and “unethical” use of genetic tests to predict the risk of complex diseases in embryos created through IVF.

Though not currently available in the UK, such tests are being marketed in the US and their availability is likely to increase as the technology develops, representatives from the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) said.

Writing in the European Journal of Human Genetics, they stressed that there is currently no evidence that the technique called polygenic risk score (PRS) analysis can predict the likelihood of as yet unborn children being at risk of complex diseases such as schizophrenia, type 2 diabetes or breast cancer in later life.

Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.

The geneticists also called for a societal debate about the future application of such tests, such as selecting for traits like height or intelligence.

“We believe that this is a highly promising field in genetics and for the prevention of disease, but at the [present] stage, it cannot be used,” said the ESHG president, Maurizio Genuardi, a professor of medical genetics at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Rome. “There is no evidence that this kind of selection can lead to better or healthier babies.”

This is an excerpt. Read the original post here. 

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

Picture1
The Orange Bowl without oranges: Can CRISPR save Florida citrus?
ChatGPT-Image-May-1-2026-11_42_59-AM-2
Viewpoint: NAD is the wellness grifters latest evidence-lite longevity fad. At least the mice are impressed.
Screenshot-2026-04-22-at-12.21.32-PM
Viewpoint: Why the retracted Monsanto glyphosate study doesn’t change the science—the world’s most popular herbicide is safe 
vax-misinformation-main
Facts & Fallacies Podcast: Limit free speech to blunt social media misinfo?
ChatGPT Image May 26, 2026, 12_06_53 PM
Fake Ebola cure promoters already cashing in as disinformation videos flood social media
global warming
‘Implausible’: Top climate scientists reject worst-case scenario—soaring temperatures and fast-rising sea levels
Screenshot 2026-05-22 at 11.31
‘Realistic and durable’: EPA proposes loosening restrictions on some PFAS ‘forever chemicals.’
ChatGPT Image May 24, 2026, 03_16_36 PM
Here come the biohackers' Enhanced Games—The Olympics for athletes doping up on steroids, hormones and peptides. What’s wrong with that?
Picture1
The FDA couldn’t find a vaccine safety crisis, so it buried its own research
Screenshot-2026-05-21-at-12.15.17-PM
UK gene-editing milestone: Livestock barley that increases ruminant value and reduces methane emissions is first-approved CRISPR crop
Screenshot-2026-05-22-at-11.59.38-AM
Is surrogacy modern-day slavery? What to know about Florida Republican effort to pass severe restrictions.
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.