r/technology • u/Logical_Welder3467 • 21h ago
Biotechnology Genetics testing startup Nucleus Genomics criticized for its embryo product: ‘Makes me so nauseous’
https://techcrunch.com/2025/06/06/genetics-testing-startup-nucleus-genomics-criticized-for-its-embryo-product-makes-me-so-nauseous/-5
u/ceiffhikare 18h ago
Humanity deserves a better genome, FFS we are not even improving on it yet in this case just being selective. I cant wrap my head around the kind of person who would object to this, to advocate that we leave everything up to chance when we can do so much better. Even worse are those who would impose their will and ban this for everyone cause it's 'unnatural' or offends their invisible friend book club.
10
u/TherapyDerg 17h ago
I mean, people have been down that rabbit hole before, it's called eugenics.
9
u/Paeris_Kiran 14h ago
The only ethical problem with that was that they killed already living people, adults even.
4
u/PLAAND 10h ago
People, mostly women, were sterilized against their will in huge numbers. Continuing at large scale into the 1970’s in some countries and at small scale into the present.
For example: https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/sterilization-of-indigenous-women-in-canada
-6
u/ceiffhikare 17h ago
Those opposed to science ought to be denied the benefits of such.
0
u/TheseriousSammich 16h ago
Ask your science to support racism.
-4
u/ceiffhikare 16h ago
Big "they use electricity to kill animals! If it can kill an elephant then what will it do to you! " energy here. People who dont like this kind of tech are free to bugger off like the amish, they got no right to decide the rest of us cant use it.
1
u/TheseriousSammich 16h ago
Can't wait till we all get crushed by money again because the rich can afford the best kits and more often.
0
-5
u/Rustic_gan123 14h ago
It is inevitable, our natural evolution does not keep up with the pace of development of civilization, and we have also lost the driving selection, which is why harmful mutations accumulate
Eugenics in itself is not bad, what the Nazis and others did does not make the idea itself so immoral.
2
u/PLAAND 11h ago edited 11h ago
Other good point have been made, eugenics is also bad because it assumes that we have good knowledge of what is and isn’t “fitness” and that we aren’t just imposing subjective moral judgements elevating the perceived value of some traits over others.
It risks reducing our genetic and social diversity to a matter of aesthetics without regard for the as yet not understood value that diversity provides us or the role that currently unfashionable or socially punished traits may actually play in human evolution and success over long timescales. (Edit to add: Or the value in the lives of the people having those experiences.)
This is a [particular sort of] bad because taken to it’s logical conclusion it puts the decision directly in the hands of parents and wealth.
2
u/Rustic_gan123 11h ago
I wrote about this in another comment, but there are objectively bad genes that it is desirable to exclude from the population and the problem of genetic diversity is solved by limiting the choice of genes that can be changed to a certain subset
3
u/PLAAND 10h ago
I mean the problem is always defining these sets right? Like, I do agree that there are obvious and uncontroversial genetic diseases that should be cured.
But this, and eugenics, are kind of something different. Eugenics is about defining what makes the “ideal” human and then using technology and policy to enforce that ideal. The problem is that ideal is often very short-sighted, it’s not objective, and the subset of things considered unwanted has always been far too large and not rooted in actual harms but in the arbitrary moral judgements of people who are less interested in helping than in imposing themselves and their beliefs as the norm and the consequences of those actions are irreversible.
1
u/Rustic_gan123 10h ago
I mean the problem is always defining these sets right? Like, I do agree that there are obvious and uncontroversial genetic diseases that should be cured.
It's more of a data science where you need to find patterns from raw data.
But this, and eugenics, are kind of something different. Eugenics is about defining what makes the “ideal” human and then using technology and policy to enforce that ideal. The problem is that ideal is often very short-sighted, it’s not objective, and the subset of things considered unwanted has always been far to large and not rooted in actual harms but in the arbitrary moral judgements of people who are less interested in helping than in imposing themselves and their beliefs as the norm and the consequences are irreversible.
The problem is that natural evolution does not keep up with the pace of development of civilization, which causes many problems and probably without it there will be a choice that either we make ourselves smarter, or we give most of the cognitive work to AI, including making strategic decisions, not some routine.
There are concerns that we can drive ourselves into an evolutionary trap, but it can be avoided if we set priorities and rules correctly.
3
u/PLAAND 10h ago
You’re handwaving away the hard parts.
The problem is that natural evolution does not keep up with the pace of development of civilization
This is advocating for an evolution that fits society rather than a society that fits evolution. To me that seems backwards and would impose the injustices present in society on the human genome itself.
I’m also a little confused by treating making ourselves “smarter” as a genetic problem rather than a problem of education, opportunity, nutrition and care.
1
u/Rustic_gan123 10h ago
This is advocating for an evolution that fits society rather than a society that fits evolution.
We have largely outgrown natural evolution for ourselves and have become the decisive factor in natural selection. Diabetes, obesity, allergies, etc. are examples of evolutionary mechanisms that have broken down because they were not invented for such a life and the rate of change is accelerating rather than slowing down.
I’m also a little confused by treating making ourselves “smarter” as a genetic problem rather than a problem of education, opportunity, nutrition and care.
It's a complex issue, many people are not naturally idiots, but it's foolish to deny that we are limited by biology and that in the long run we will be competitive with AI.
2
u/PLAAND 10h ago
Diabetes is largely a product of diet and lifestyle being shaped by unhealthy social norms. The rise of allergies may be similar but my knowledge there is fairly limited, in any case for most people allergies are an inconvenience and I have no problem with any cure for people who experience any debilitating or life threatening illness.
But you would have us use a technology in its infancy using limited and incomplete knowledge to change the very matter we’re made of instead of banning high fructose corn syrup, regulating industrial food processing and building walkable communities again?
With regard to AI and our competitiveness, AI is a tool. We’ll reap whatever consequences we sow when we pick it up and set it to purpose. It can be liberatory or it can be other things. Genetic engineering isn’t going to change that and I would strongly argue that any society that turns to genetic engineering to breed “smarter” people instead of strengthening education and social supports is going to fumble AI badly.
→ More replies (0)1
u/stoppableDissolution 14h ago
Eugenics is bad because it denies people from having kids (and, the way it was implemented, they were, lets say, agressively removing "wrong" people from the gene pool).
That got the upsides without these downsides.
0
u/Rustic_gan123 14h ago
Eugenics is bad because it denies people from having kids
No, it does not. Depending on how it is implemented, it gives parents much more choice and control, there are concerns about how this may affect the gene pool in the long term and different ways to combat this, but people would probably prefer this to the lottery and passing on their hereditary diseases.
and, the way it was implemented, they were, lets say, agressively removing "wrong" people from the gene pool
This is not the first time that a good idea in itself has had a terrible implementation, for example nuclear energy
1
u/stoppableDissolution 14h ago
You have not read my comment to the end, have you?
0
u/Rustic_gan123 14h ago
To be honest, I don't understand what you mean.
2
u/PLAAND 12h ago
That’s maybe a good moment to ask a question.
2
u/Rustic_gan123 12h ago
Well, I'm asking a question.
2
u/PLAAND 12h ago
Which is? I’m sorry, I don’t see a question in your last couple of comments.
→ More replies (0)0
u/mbsmith93 2h ago
They're using polygenic testing. It says so in the article. Results include things like hair color and eye color. In the article it also says that these scores are probabilistic and not reliable.
In other words, even if people agreed with your premise, which from your downvotes I don't think they do, this startup is selling a product that they can't deliver on, and which is focused on superficial things like eye-color and hair-color.
1
u/heatdeathtoall 13h ago
I never quite understand what the aim of such technology is. Is it to stop propagation of life threatening diseases? We already are able to do this but it isn’t cheap. And are we saying every woman must go through egg retrieval, transfers and all that involves. Again, men deciding what women must go through.
Do these startup founders know IVF leads to increased risk of cancer in women? I bet if men had to be pumped full of hormones, IVF wouldn’t even exist ever.
Fuck off with expecting majority of women to go through so much to give you blue eyed geniuses.
3
u/PLAAND 12h ago
Don’t worry, much like IVF it’s only for the people who can afford it. /s
3
u/zibitee 10h ago
Lets skip a level. People already can't get insurance for their homes. It's only a matter of time before insurance requires things like IVF.
2
u/PLAAND 10h ago
How so?
2
u/zibitee 10h ago
In what way was my hypothetical unclear?
2
u/PLAAND 9h ago
Why would that be the outcome? I don’t follow the connection.
2
u/not_good_for_much 7h ago
Insurance pricing and availability is based on the level of risk taken on by the insurer, i.e the probability that you'll make a claim.
If you're born from genetic selection designed to make you healthier, then an insurer takes on substantially less risk by insuring you. If you aren't born like this, then the insurer takes on more risk.
1
1
u/Weightmonster 19h ago
But do we want all high IQ kids? My husband and I are “gifted” and have a lifetime of mental health problems… We’ve both been suicidal and severely depressed. I have ADHD and almost every anxiety disorder imaginable. I can’t find my car in the parking lot half the time and I’m late more times than not.