Sarah Norcross, director of the Progress Educational Trust (PET), said:
It is neither scientifically nor ethically legitimate to try to select embryos using polygenic risk scores. Even if one assumes – for the sake of argument, and despite a complete lack of clinical evidence – that a polygenic risk score could meaningfully predict certain things about certain embryos, the sheer number of embryos that would be required to make use of this fact could not be achieved practically in a clinical setting. There are precious few embryos to choose from in a given fertility treatment context, and so reasons for preferring one over another have to be grounded in clear arguments and evidence. Preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic conditions passes muster, whereas preimplantation genetic testing using polygenic risk scores does not.
When there are two technologies that have legitimate uses – preimplantation genetic testing (useful for avoiding certain diseases) and polygenic risk scores (useful in research, with some potentially useful clinical applications) – it is tempting to assume, and easy to persuade unsuspecting patients, that the two technologies used in combination will be just as legitimate if not more so. This is absolutely not the case here. It is not scientifically or medically useful, nor is it ethical, to try to use polygenic risk scores to select embryos. Fertility clinics should not be doing this.