7 Comments

Loved the article, just a point on the finance side: as others noted, you should apply a discount rate. If I pay 10,000 USD today and receive 10,000 USD back in 20 years, I did not breakeven, I lost money. This has to be accounted for.

Expand full comment

Great article, but one minor nitpick:

“as the majority of the people using this technology will likely be White.”

This would be true initially, but perhaps not eventually, and certainly not worldwide long-term.

Expand full comment

How does the estimated IQ gain from a couple creating multiple embryos, sequencing their genome, and selecting the best compare to the estimated IQ gain from using donated sperm/eggs from people with the desired traits? I would imagine for most people the potential gains from the 2nd route would be greater.

Expand full comment

How would you test each blastocyst for IQ? If the researcher must "poke" or "scrape" the blastocyst for internal cells or trophoblasts, wouldn't they risk damaging the blastocyst with testing for IQ, causing an increase in mutational load?

Expand full comment

Incisions don't cause mutations, so no. It does, however, slightly lower the viability of the embryo. Look up some of the animal breeding studies.

Expand full comment

There is some damage, but the effect is not that large. Cattle breeders do this type of sequencing and think the trade-off is worth it, generalize to humans as you will.

Expand full comment

Interesting skim read.

Two points on profitability:

We should expect income growth over time. As incomes grow, we should exptect the value of an extra IQ point to increase over time in dollar terms (assuming the gap remains say 1% of income, 1% becomes larger the higher incomes are).

2) Ideally we should apply a discount rate. one way to think about this: would the parents be better off just putting the money used for embryo selection into an index fund? Very possibly. At a societal level benefits are much larger though (see hive mind).

Expand full comment