EUGENICS AND POLYGENIC EMBRYO SCREENING: PUBLIC, CLINICIAN, AND PATIENT PERCEPTIONS OF CONDITIONS VERSUS TRAITS

Dorit Barlevy; Rémy A Furrer; Asha Kalapatapu; Abigail Martinez; Todd Lencz; Shai Carmi; Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz; Stacey Pereira

doi:10.1016/j.gim.2025.101507

EUGENICS AND POLYGENIC EMBRYO SCREENING: PUBLIC, CLINICIAN, AND PATIENT PERCEPTIONS OF CONDITIONS VERSUS TRAITS

Genet Med. 2025 Jun 21:101507. doi: 10.1016/j.gim.2025.101507. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Dorit Barlevy¹, Rémy A Furrer², Asha Kalapatapu³, Abigail Martinez³, Todd Lencz⁴, Shai Carmi⁵, Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz⁶, Stacey Pereira³

Affiliations

¹ Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA. Electronic address: dorit.barlevy@bcm.edu.
² Department of Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
³ Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
⁴ Institute of Behavioral Science, The Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Northwell Health, Manhasset, NY, USA; Departments of Psychiatry and Molecular Medicine, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, NY, USA; Division of Research, Department of Psychiatry, The Zucker Hillside Hospital Division of Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, NY, USA.
⁵ Braun School of Public Health and Community Medicine, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel.
⁶ Department of Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.

PMID: 40557708
DOI: 10.1016/j.gim.2025.101507

Abstract

Purpose: Polygenic embryo screening (PES) estimates an embryo's genetic chances of developing complex conditions (e.g., cancer) and traits (e.g., height). Stakeholders have raised concerns that PES promotes eugenic practices and ideology.

Methods: We surveyed a nationally representative sample of the US public on approval of screening embryos for 12 conditions and 12 traits, and examined the association between disapproval and concern about eugenics. We also conducted semi-structured interviews with US-based reproductive endocrinology and infertility specialists (REIs) and in vitro fertilization (IVF) patients on their perspectives towards PES.

Results: Among the US public (n=1423), disapproval of screening embryos for traits has a stronger association with concern that PES promotes eugenics than disapproval of screening embryos for conditions. Interviews with REIs (n=27) and IVF patients (n=26) suggest that perceptions of PES as eugenic were more common when discussing screening and selecting for or against traits versus selecting against conditions.

Discussion: Results suggest PES for traits is more frequently associated with eugenics and perceived often as unacceptable while PES for conditions is perceived sometimes as acceptable. Future research should explore whether the distinction between conditions and traits is meaningful in the definition of eugenics and/or approval of genomics-based embryo selection and how that influences clinical practices and policy.

Keywords: eugenics; polygenic embryo screening; qualitative research; quantitative research.