Silicon Valley billionaires’ bid to engineer genetically superior babies is moving from science‑fiction speculation to a market that already has parents paying tens of thousands of dollars for “designer” embryos. The story of Arthur Zey, 41 and Chase Popp, 29, who chose a screened embryo for their one‑month‑old son Dax, illustrates how a niche industry is turning the promise of enhanced traits into a commercial reality.
Using a service that began operating last year, the couple paid a five‑figure fee to have six embryos – created from Zey’s sperm and a donor egg – genetically profiled for height, intelligence and a suite of health markers. They then selected the embryo predicted to have the best longevity and IQ scores, and the child was born via surrogate. “Looking at Dax, he overall seems like he feels good, he looks healthy to me,” Popp said, describing the infant as a “designer baby” he is proud of.
The promise of screened embryos
Companies such as Herasight claim to predict complex traits by analysing the DNA of embryos and comparing it with data from extensive biobanks. For a $50,000 price tag provides parents with projections for traits ranging from height and IQ to risk factors for schizophrenia, psoriasis and type‑2 diabetes.
While pre‑implantation genetic testing for single‑gene disorders such as cystic fibrosis or sickle‑cell disease is an established medical practice, the polygenic traits marketed by these firms—intelligence, personality, even hair colour—are far more complex. Experts warn that the science is still “near impossible” to deliver reliable predictions for many of these attributes, especially when multiple genes interact with environmental factors.
Silicon Valley money fuels the push
The rapid growth of this sector is underpinned by substantial venture funding. The San Francisco startup Preventive, which is researching reproductive gene editing, has raised $30 million from investors including OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Coinbase co‑founder Brian Armstrong. Armstrong has publicly imagined “Gattaca‑style IVF clinics” that would “accelerate evolution.”
Other firms, such as Nucleus Genomics backed by PayPal founder Peter Thiel, are marketing direct‑to‑consumer testing for traits like acne, hair colour and anxiety, even plastering New York subway stations with the slogan “Have Your Best Baby.” The market’s high‑net‑worth clientele is reflected in comments that parents are already spending “$90,000 for kindergarten” to secure early advantages for their children.
Scientific and ethical challenges
Leading bioethicists caution that the drive to “enhance” human embryos raises profound moral questions. Arthur Caplan, head of medical ethics at New York University Grossman School of Medicine, warned that many investors are more interested in “what happens in Silicon Valley with their reproduction” than in the welfare of the children themselves. He noted the risk that “healthy genes are incorrectly targeted, or DNA may be disrupted in ways that have unintended consequences.”
Fyodor Urnov, director at the Innovative Genomics Institute, described the current focus of “embryo editors” as “baby improvement,” calling it both “technically dangerous and profoundly amoral.” He stressed that the line between treating a serious genetic disease and enhancing a trait such as height or IQ is blurred, and that the technology could exacerbate social inequality if only the wealthy can afford it.
Regulatory frameworks add another layer of complexity. In the United States, editing the germline of embryos with the intention of creating a baby is prohibited, and most other countries have similar bans. Yet companies continue to offer screening services that skirt the legal line, arguing that they are providing “medical‑grade” insights rather than direct gene editing.
What’s next for the industry
As the science matures, the pressure to commercialise predictive genomics will likely intensify. Researchers anticipate that advances in large‑scale biobank data could improve the accuracy of polygenic risk scores, while the cost of sequencing continues to fall. At the same time, public debate and policy discussions are expected to sharpen around issues of consent, equity and long‑term safety.
For families like the Zeys and Popp, the promise of a “better” child is already a lived reality. Whether the broader societal implications will be addressed responsibly remains an open question that will shape the future of reproductive medicine.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical, legal, or financial advice.
We welcome your thoughts and encourage you to share this story with others.
