Silicon Valley is rebranding eugenics

Scientific Racism’s Secret Backers: How Tech Wealth and Stolen Bio-Data Fuel a Discredited Pseudoscience

Sat Aug 29 2026 /Mpelembe Media/ — The contemporary landscape of reproductive medicine is witnessing the rapid commercialization of polygenic embryo screening (PES), a controversial technology that allows prospective parents to genotypically analyze and prioritize IVF-created embryos based on polygenic risk scores (PRSs). Driven by several well-funded US-based startups, this emerging industry offers to estimate the likelihood of chronic disease liabilities as well as quantitative, non-disease traits like eye color, height, and predicted intelligence. For instance, Orchid Biosciences markets whole-genome embryo sequencing at $2,500 per embryo to assess genetic predispositions to multi-gene health conditions like schizophrenia and cardiovascular diseases. In parallel, Nucleus Genomics has heavily marketed a $30,000 “IVF+” package to screen for over 2,000 traits, leveraging a high-profile New York City subway advertising campaign featuring slogans like “Have Your Best Baby” and “IQ is 50% Genetic”. The most controversial player in this market, Heliospect Genomics, charges wealthy couples up to $50,000 to screen up to 100 embryos for predicted intelligence and other behavioral traits using specialized algorithms.

Despite highly confident marketing claims, mainstream geneticists and bioethicists warn that embryo selection based on polygenic scores is scientifically unproven, speculative, and highly uncertain. Standard mathematical modeling reveals that selecting from a standard cohort of five to ten embryos yields an expected gain of only a few IQ points and one to three centimeters in height—statistically minor differences that are heavily eclipsed by postnatal environmental factors such as early childhood education, nutrition, and socioeconomic opportunity. Furthermore, biological trait selection is severely complicated by antagonistic pleiotropy, in which selecting for a desirable cognitive score may unwittingly select for genetic variants that increase susceptibility to severe neuropsychiatric disorders like bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, or even late-onset diseases like Parkinson’s. These compounding scientific gaps lead critics to denounce these commercial programs as promoting “bad science as big business” and misleading parents with false expectations.

Beneath the commercial surface of modern reproductive biotechnology lies a profound ideological alignment with “free-market eugenics” and Silicon Valley pronatalism. High-profile tech oligarchs—such as Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Sam Altman, and Brian Armstrong—have invested millions of dollars into these startups, driven by a techno-solutionist anxiety regarding falling fertility rates and “population collapse”. This worldview, situated within the broader, transhumanist “TESCREAL” ideological bundle, seeks to treat human reproduction as an industrial manufacturing process to be optimized. Pronatalist advocates like Simone and Malcolm Collins openly defend preimplantation testing to give their offspring the “best possible roll of the dice,” while dismissing children born with natural genetic variances. Bioethicists warn that this modern “hipster eugenics” operates under a consumer-driven cover of procreative autonomy, reviving the core genetic essentialism of early 20th-century eugenics and the “Better Babies” contests of American state fairs.

This resurgence is not confined to commercial IVF clinics; it is heavily linked to clandestine far-right networks that actively exploit public biological databases to rehabilitate scientific racism. An undercover investigation by the anti-racism organization Hope Not Hate exposed the Human Diversity Foundation (HDF), a far-right group funded with over $1 million by US tech multimillionaire Andrew Conru and led by extremists Matthew Frost, Erik Ahrens, and Emil Kirkegaard. Operating as a successor to the historical Pioneer Fund, the HDF has utilized podcasts and magazines to disseminate discredited ideas about the genetic superiority of certain ethnic groups, arguing that social inequalities are biologically predetermined and advocating for policies like “remigration” or forced mass removal. Crucially, both far-right actors from the HDF and commercial representatives from Heliospect Genomics successfully accessed sensitive genomic data from the UK Biobank to build their intelligence and trait prediction models, prompting intense institutional scrutiny regarding bio-data security and vetting policies.

Faced with this eugenic resurgence, global scientific and professional associations have strongly reaffirmed the genomic consensus on human variation. Organizations like the American Association of Biological Anthropologists (AABA) and the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) have issued definitive statements outlining that race has no biological or genetic basis. Decades of evolutionary genetics prove that humans share 99.9% of their DNA in common, drawing an unassailable physiological oneness, and that the minor 0.1% genetic difference continuum does not align with socially constructed racial categories. In a landmark historical reckoning in 2023, the ASHG released a comprehensive report detailing its own complicity and the involvement of its early founders in the American eugenics movement, issuing a sincere apology for past silence during moments when genetics was misused to justify discrimination and committing to actively dismantle this legacy.

The societal normalization of polygenic screening raises severe ethical, psychological, and regulatory challenges. Bioethicists point out that selecting embryos based on designed parameters introduces a toxic element of conditional love into parent-child relationships, transforming children into modular consumer goods and exposing them to immense hyper-parenting pressures. On a macro-societal level, because these expensive screenings are restricted to wealthy consumers, they threaten to genetically embed class privileges over generations, paving the way toward a dystopian “genetic apartheid”. These ethical risks have led to stark regulatory divisions: while the United States remains a highly laissez-faire, unregulated market where embryo trait testing is governed purely by consumer demand and market forces, countries like the United Kingdom, France, and Australia strictly outlaw the use of genetic screening for non-medical traits like predicted intelligence or physical stature.

The $50,000 Brain: 5 Surprising Realities of the New “Designer Baby” Era

1. The Subway Ad for Your Future Child

If you happened to be commuting through the New York City subway system in late 2025, you likely encountered a jarring appeal to your deepest parental anxieties. Plastered across the stations were high-gloss advertisements from the startup Nucleus Genomics, bearing the bold slogan: “Have Your Best Baby.” To a tired commuter staring at the flickering lights of the L train, the clinical promises were impossible to ignore: “IQ is 50% Genetic” and “Height is 80% Genetic.”This is the new front line of the “designer baby” era, and it is dressed in the comforting language of “preventive medicine” and “optimization.” Startups like Nucleus Genomics and Heliospect are no longer pitching science fiction; they are selling a consumer product. The core tension here is profound: we are being offered biological solutions for social problems. By reframing In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) as a tool for “genetic optimization,” these companies invite parents to treat the womb as a laboratory for competitive advantage, promising a “reassurance” that nature alone can no longer provide.

2. IQ for Sale: The $50,000 Gamble

At the bleeding edge of this market is Heliospect Genomics, a U.S. startup that has already reportedly worked with couples to screen embryos for cognitive potential. The price for this peek into a child’s intellectual future is a steep $50,000, though competitors like Nucleus Genomics offer a $30,000 “IVF+” program that includes full DNA sequencing.However, the scientific reality check is sobering. Intelligence is a polygenic trait, influenced by thousands of genes interacting in ways we barely understand. As the author Jonathan Anomaly notes in Creating Future People , evolution hasn’t already made us “super-intelligent” because there are significant metabolic and psychological costs to maintaining that biological hardware. Current technology relies on “polygenic scores,” which are probabilistic at best. Selecting an embryo with a high score might marginally increase a likelihood, but it offers no guarantee of a future Nobel Prize.As noted in a report by CGTN America:”Would you pay $50,000 for a smarter baby? A US startup Heliospect Genomics is offering to screen embryos for genes linked to higher IQ. Five couples have already tried it but the science is far from solid. Experts say intelligence is influenced by many genes so results could be unpredictable.”

3. The Rebranding of Eugenics: From State Control to Consumer Choice

Historically, eugenics was a state-mandated nightmare of forced sterilizations. Today, it is being rebranded as “techno-eugenics”—a market-driven movement fueled by Silicon Valley capital and a burgeoning “pronatalist” ideology. Figures like Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, and JD Vance have been linked to this movement, which views assisted reproduction as a “magic bullet” to stave off declining birth rates and the perceived existential risks of the “Great Replacement Theory.”This shift replaces government decree with the logic of the marketplace, where the wealthy can purchase “superiority.” Beyond avoiding disease, these firms are now targeting a menu of traits for optimization:

Cognitive Ability: Seeking high-IQ polygenic scores.

Physical Stature: Selecting for predicted height.

Aesthetic Traits: Eye color and hair color selection.

Personality: Screening for traits like extraversion or conscientiousness.This commodification of life turns biological heritage into a series of value judgments. As Professor Marius Turda, an expert in the history of eugenics, warns: “A biological solution is never a good idea for a social problem.”

4. The “Contingent Love” Problem: Children as Products vs. Gifts

The rise of genetic selection forces us to confront a moral pivot in the nature of parenthood. Traditionally, children have been viewed as “gifts” to be received in all their mystery. The “designer” model, however, views them as optimized products. This creates what bioethicists call the “contingent love” problem: the uncomfortable undercurrent that a parent’s affection might be dependent on a genetic profile meeting a specific standard.Public sentiment is deeply divided on this shift. According to data from the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), 51% of Americans express concern over the destruction of embryos during the IVF process, and nearly half of 2024 Trump voters believe sex selection should be illegal.The divide becomes even sharper when looking at “enhancement” versus “prevention.” Research from Harvard researchers shows a clear split:

75% Support: Using technology to screen embryos for inheritable diseases.

33% Support: Screening for non-medical traits like IQ or height.

<15% Interest: The percentage of Americans who would actually use this technology themselves.

5. The Biological Myth of Race vs. The Reality of Screening

Modern genetic testing often risks reifying outdated racial hierarchies. Scientific bodies like the American Association of Biological Anthropologists (AABA) and the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) emphasize that race is a social construct, not a biological one. Humans share 99.9% of their DNA, and the variation that does exist is “clinal”—it changes gradually across geographic space, never following discrete racial lines.The danger is that “modern” genetic tests often oversimplify and misrepresent human history to suggest a congruence between DNA and cultural categories that simply does not exist. By promising to “preserve” specific lineages, these technologies can be co-opted to serve white-supremacist anxieties, hiding 19th-century prejudices behind 21st-century algorithms.

6. The Hidden Cost: When “Smarter” Means “More Vulnerable”

We often assume that “more” of a good trait is always better, but biology is a system of trade-offs. Jonathan Anomaly points out that the same genetic variants contributing to high intelligence are often linked to excitability and mood disorders. By aggressively selecting for a “smarter” brain, parents may inadvertently increase their child’s risk for:

Depression

Schizophrenia

Autism Spectrum DisorderFurthermore, traits like height and intelligence are “positional goods.” If every parent pays to make their child taller or smarter, the relative advantage is neutralized. We are left in a genetic “arms race” that increases individual biological vulnerability without improving collective social welfare.

7. Conclusion: Beyond the Genetic Algorithm

As we drift toward a future defined by polygenic scores, we must remember that science remains incapable of quantifying the most vital elements of the human experience. A child selected for a “perfect” mathematical score may find their soul’s fulfillment as a painter. We must ask ourselves: would we have wanted to be screened ourselves? The “surprises” of human nature—the unexpected talents and the unique vulnerabilities—are what define our humanity. Marius Turda offers a poignant image: a child as strong as Hercules and as smart as Einstein could still grow “disillusioned with life” if they lacked the foundation of unconditional love. No matter how much capital we pour into the $50,000 brain, a life lived through an algorithm can never replace the impact of a life lived through love.