loading . . . Nucleus Genomics faces criticism as it and other firms promise embryo optimization despite unresolved scientific, ethical questions A new wave of startups like Nucleus Genomics is promising genetically ‘optimized’ future children. However, the science and ethics remain murky.
These firms are marketing the idea of selecting traits for customers’ future babies through genetic screening based on elective IVF.
Nucleus is also specifically facing criticism now.
Advertising for elective IVF for genetic optimization of babies.
## Elective IVF
What exactly is elective IVF?
It means non-medically necessary IVF. It is done for other reasons like stabs at genetic optimization of babies. Here’s a nice Axios piece for background: **Elective IVF gains traction. Doctors have concerns.** There unresolved ethical and societal questions here.
I’ve touched on some of these questions before on The Niche. This all came to mind again as **Nucleus Genomics** just launched a PR campaign and is getting hit with ongoing criticism. Nucleus Genomics, led by Kian Sadeghi, is calling its embryo selection service “Nucleus Embryo.”
Note that there are other, clearly ethical contexts in which IVF may be considered non-medically indicated but not oriented toward optimization such as for single parents and same sex couples.
Let’s focus on the more complex IVF being marketed for trait selection.
Kian Sadeghi, Founder and CEO of Nucleus Genomics. LinkedIn pic.
## Elective IVF for trait selection faces scientific limitations
The idea here is that genetic screening of early embryos during the IVF process supposedly could allow for selection of future babies with certain traits. Maybe greater intelligence, being tall, or a lower risk of undesired traits. What can actually be achieved here is unknown but at this point the power seems low in most cases.
If you could hypothetically elect to have a baby with a chance of a 5% higher IQ (or a claimed 10% lower risk of skin issues or baldness, etc.) during the IVF process, would you?
Such attempts would be highly error-prone and yield low probabilities of gaining (or selecting against) the indicated trait for most types of traits that people are discussing.
You also cannot be sure that you are selecting for one trait without getting others that could be problematic. Even if hypothetically you get an arguably smarter baby, the process might also inadvertently increase the risk for complex psychiatric or behavioral traits, given the highly polygenic and pleiotropic nature of brain-related genetics.
I’m not a statistical genetics person (learn more on that in a nice post on **trait prediction in embryos** and the many challenges with it), but everything I’ve seen suggests today’s modeling is not very powerful or accurate for human trait prediction. On that level, in my view the elective IVF marketing is overselling what it can actually do and may be making some erroneous assumptions. For example, from that background post:
> “The strongest challenge to the application of polygenic scores for embryo selection comes from a recent body of research showing that most scores combine causal genetic effects with population stratification, and therefore can be expected to lose much of their predictive power when comparing two members of the same family (e.g. two embryos from the same couple). There is increasing agreement in the field that unless scores are validated within families, headline results like “decreases risk of X by Y%” will be large overestimates.”
In other words, it’s relatively easier (but still difficult) to link genetics to traits in large, heterogeneous populations, but that doesn’t clearly apply to embryo selection within families.
Then there are the ethical complications.
## Ethicists’ take on genetic optimization & Nucleus Genomics
This SciAm piece by Art Caplan and James Tabery also provides some useful background from a bioethical perspective: **The Myth of the Designer Baby—Why ‘Genetic Optimization’ Is More Hype Than Science**. It also raises many issues with Nucleus Genomics specifically. From the piece:
> “Sadeghi’s Nucleus Embryo is what happens when you Silicon-Valley-ify diagnostic genetics. Scientific reliability is swapped out in exchange for braggadocio about disrupting a medical status quo that may not even need it.”
The marketing is getting beyond the science. There’s also this conclusion:
> “The real danger is that a bunch of wealthy parents-to-be who are too eager to control their children’s biological future will shell out $5,999 for a product that offers no such control. Those parents might avoid perfectly healthy embryos, scared of implanting ones that don’t appear to be sufficiently optimized. Or it could result in children being born to those parents and expected to live up to their purchased optimized future, but instead winding up very much like the variety of humans who proceeded them.”
I agree with Capan and Tabery on this. In addition, the technological and marketing push we’re seeing here is not to make some better computer chip or smartphone but “optimize” babies. In a sense, firms like Nucleus are viewing human embryos (and the babies made from them) as technological outputs that can be optimized, which is dehumanizing.
It’s a direct path toward eugenics as well as most of the emphasis is not on disease prevention.
> Anyone can have a taller, smarter, and healthier baby with advanced genetics.
>
> But we don't talk about it.
>
> This campaign bridges that gap. pic.twitter.com/LORhuo7THG
>
> — Kian Sadeghi (@KianSadeghi5) November 17, 2025
## Recent criticism of Nucleus Genomics
Over the last week or so some criticisms of Nucleus Genomics have been escalating. These claims are publicly disputed, and I’m not taking a position on their accuracy, but they warrant discussion.
See the retweet from Anthony Regalado below for some of the assertions, including alleged fake AI-generated reviews. Much of this comes from the X account of Sichuan Mala. Here’s Mala’s **blog post on Nucleus.**Here was a **response from Nucleus**and then a response to that by **Sichuan Mala.**What are we to make of this back and forth?
> Thread brings all the scuttlebutt about "Nucleus"–start up offering to score embryos. Fake AI 'customers,' a lawsuit, and sketchy technology. https://t.co/6YJTy4MXdj
>
> — Antonio Regalado (@antonioregalado) November 23, 2025
This is a complex situation with different competing firms in the mix including Genomic Prediction and Herasight. There’s also some litigation here. No surprise there.
Finally, we also shouldn’t lose sight of the bigger picture reality that elective IVF for genetic optimization by any firm, even with inevitable technological improvements, is going to come with potential ethical baggage and risks of heading toward eugenics.
Overall, at this stage, the scientific foundation for trait-selection IVF remains weak, and the ethical risks remain profound and unresolved. Until both are addressed, no amount of marketing can justify treating human embryos as optimization projects.
Please leave this field empty
#### Subscribe to Our Newsletter
Email *
Please check your inbox or spam folder now to confirm your subscription.
Please leave this field empty
#### Subscribe to Our Newsletter
Be the first to know about the latest developments in stem cell and regenerative medicine research.
Email *
Please check your inbox or spam folder now to confirm your subscription.
### Like this:
Like Loading...
### _Related Posts_ https://ipscell.com/2025/11/nucleus-genomics-faces-criticism-as-it-and-other-firms-promise-embryo-optimization-despite-unresolved-scientific-ethical-questions/
