A growing group of fertility and genetics startups says it can give prospective parents far more information about embryos than traditional genetic testing ever could. The promise goes beyond screening for serious inherited diseases. Some companies now offer estimates involving height, disease risk, eye color and even intelligence.
The technology is real. The certainty behind some of the predictions is much more controversial.
Companies such as Nucleus Genomics and Herasight are offering advanced genetic analysis to couples using IVF. Nucleus says its embryo package can analyze up to 20 embryos and provide information on thousands of conditions and traits. Its website lists areas including cancers, heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease, height and intelligence.
Herasight describes its service as polygenic embryo screening, a method that examines many genetic variants at once to estimate an embryo’s predisposition to common diseases and other complex traits. The company itself emphasizes that these results are risk estimates, not guarantees.
How is this different from traditional embryo testing?
Genetic testing during IVF is not new.
For years, doctors have been able to test embryos for certain chromosomal abnormalities or specific inherited conditions caused by identifiable genetic mutations.
Polygenic screening is different.
Instead of looking for one mutation responsible for one disease, researchers analyze large numbers of genetic variants and combine them into what is called a polygenic score. The goal is to estimate whether one embryo may have a higher or lower genetic predisposition to a particular condition or characteristic than another.
That distinction matters because traits such as intelligence, height, diabetes risk and longevity are influenced by many genes, as well as environmental and other factors.
This is where the scientific debate becomes much more intense.
Can an embryo’s IQ really be predicted?
Companies offering these services say genetic information can help distinguish among embryos.
But scientists and bioethicists have questioned how useful such predictions really are when comparing embryos from the same parents.
A 2026 academic review examining polygenic embryo selection noted that the technology is already being offered commercially even though substantial clinical uncertainty remains. The review also highlighted major ethical and regulatory differences between countries.
The concern is not necessarily that genetics tells us nothing about complex traits. Rather, a statistical relationship found across very large populations does not automatically mean scientists can precisely predict the eventual characteristics of one particular child.
Even Herasight tells potential customers that screening may add little useful information in some situations, such as when a family has only one or two embryos available.
The price of more information
The services are also expensive.
Nucleus currently advertises its embryo analysis package for $9,999, covering analysis of up to 20 embryos along with genetic testing of both prospective parents. (Nucleus)
Other advanced screening services have been reported at substantially higher prices. Herasight has attracted attention for services involving predictions of disease risk as well as traits such as height and IQ, with reported costs reaching tens of thousands of dollars. (YouTube)
That raises another question: if the technology becomes more powerful, will genetic selection become something available primarily to wealthy families?
Preventing disease or choosing a “better” child?
For many parents, the appeal is easy to understand.
If genetic testing could meaningfully reduce the chance that a child develops a devastating disease, many families would see that as an important medical advance.
But once the same technology begins ranking embryos according to predicted intelligence, height or appearance, the ethical question becomes much more complicated.
Where does disease prevention end and genetic optimization begin?
Critics worry that embryo ranking could deepen social inequality or revive ideas associated with eugenics, while supporters argue that parents should have access to information about their future children and the freedom to make reproductive choices. Recent research shows that governments around the world have reached very different conclusions about where those limits should be drawn.
For now, the science is moving faster than any broad social consensus.
And the most important question may no longer be simply whether scientists can learn more about an embryo before birth.
It may be how much information parents should use when deciding which embryo becomes their child.
Sources: The Economist; Nucleus Genomics; Herasight; Frontiers in Reproductive Health; Hokkaido University/EurekAlert
By NJ RADAR Team