The son of Iranian immigrants, Kian Sadeghi started genetic testing startup Nucleus Genomics almost right out of high school. It’s generated quite the controversy with its new product, Nucleus Embryo. The industry startup, which launched in early 2021, aims to remove the guesswork by predicting patients’ risks for various diseases. Earlier this year, it completed a $14 million Series A round to broaden its offerings. Nucleus Embryo’s assertion that it can help parents make the world’s first “designer babies” ignited backlash and condemnation from scientists, bioethicists, politicians, and social commentators.
The recent announcement of Nucleus Embryo, made through a tweet that garnered over 4 million views, has led to a flood of comments, many expressing disbelief and horror. Critics have been raising alarms about the ethics of using this kind of genetic data to control the traits of future children well before this most recent announcement. When it came to the new product, Max Niederhofer—a very vocal opponent—did not mince his words. He added though, honestly, the reality of this just makes me so nauseous, I was going to write something like Noah go get the ark.
Nucleus Genomics, as geneticists know well, has a history of courting controversy. Their products supposedly use genetics to distill the answers to life’s most complicated questions, like intelligence. In 2022, Sadeghi introduced Nucleus IQ, which allegedly tells users whether and to what extent their genetic makeup affects their IQ. Unsurprisingly, critics have derided these claims as “bad science and big business,” arguing that the scientific foundation for any such genetic correlations is untested and likely unsound.
At 25 years of age, Sadeghi is in charge of Nucleus Genomics. He spoke eloquently in defense of the company’s methodology and the promise of genetic optimization. He referenced a 2018 paper published in Nature that validated methods for assessing risks associated with five common diseases: coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, type 2 diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease, and breast cancer. As Sadeghi observes, “What was once an outrageous idea has become a common practice. The same is true with genetic optimization. The technology is in the past tense,” said Fischer, “but it’s not going anywhere, it’s here in perpetuity.”
And while parents aren’t required to use the Nucleus Embryo product, they can voluntarily choose to upload genetic data in the hopes of maximizing their prospective children’s genetic attributes. In short, the entire endeavor raises important ethical questions about what the development of such technology means for society and future generations. In defending the service against the backlash, Nucleus Genomics wrote, “Every parent wants to give their children more than they had. For the first time in human history, Nucleus makes a big new promise to the long-time commitment.
In spite of these claims, many experts are warning against inflating the promises of genetic testing. As the National Human Genome Research Institute noted, a polygenic risk score can do nothing more than elucidate the relative risk for a disease. This example shows just how limited these technologies and especially their ability to make accurate predictions are.
Now, Nucleus Genomics is dealing with that backlash. This conflict is the latest example of an expanding divide between those who embrace the promise of new genetic science and those who fear what it might unleash. Debates surrounding Nucleus Embryo and its impact on future generations continue today. The most fascinating aspect will be watching how the public reacts to these new, provocative developments.
Leave a Reply