If the last two decades have taught us anything, it is that the slippery slope is indeed slippery. What society once naturally recoiled from—designer babies, artificial wombs, and the termination of disabled children—is today the source of misguided compassion. Nowhere is this more obvious than in assisted reproductive technology. The desire to overcome the natural limitations of procreation has led researchers to develop startling new technologies.

The first, embryonic polygenetic screening, allows scientists to test how multiple genes interact and predict an embryo’s likelihood for conditions such as hearing loss, obesity, or insulin resistance. Similarly, genetic researchers claim this technology can discern an embryonic child’s personality traits such as kindness, creativity, and his/her intellectual aptitude.

The second technology, in vitro gametogenesis (IVG), genetically modifies human cells into viable egg and sperm—regardless of the person’s sex or age. This means that one man could father a child he is 100% related to or two women could be the genetic parents of the same child.

Such technologies subvert God’s good design for human procreation and undermine the inherent worth and dignity of each child. Indeed, as Joshua Mitchell argues, technology can either be a substitute for the human person or it can supplement human flourishing. When it comes to reproductive technology, embryonic polygenetic screening and IVG are attempts to substitute the human person. In this article, I hope to give a brief overview of two new technological developments that Christians ought to oppose: embryonic polygenetic screening and in vitro gametogenesis.

Technology as a Substitute: Embryonic Polygenetic Screening and IVG

Embryonic Polygenic Screening

Embryonic polygenic screening is a new technology that allows prospective parents to test an embryo’s genetic makeup with unprecedented detail. Unlike traditional preimplantation genetic testing that only looks for specific single-gene disorders or sex, polygenic screening looks at how multiple genes interact to assess an embryo’s risk for more complex conditions.

>>> Frozen Embryos: Court Decision Got It Right, but Serious Issues Remain

New companies, like Orchid, use this technology and give each embryo(s) a polygenic risk score that shows an embryo’s chances of developing a range of health outcomes. Parents are given a polygenic “score” that shows an embryo’s likelihood of developing heart disease, insulin resistance, or even hearing loss. This score, of course, entirely overlooks the role of “nurture” in favor of the embryo’s genetic “nature.”

This desire for a healthy child, however, may quickly give way to a dystopian world where parents can select embryos based on their potential IQ or personality traits. As an undercover report published in The Guardian shows, another genetic testing company, Heliospect Genomics, may go so far as to allow parents to choose children with “dark triad” traits, “a reference to Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy.” (Hannah Devlin et al., “US Startup Charging Couples to ‘Screen Embryos for IQ,’” The Guardian, October 18, 2024.)

Not only does this technology reject the inherent worth and dignity of each child, but it gives parents a false sense of control and security from the natural vulnerabilities of childbearing. As I explore in a recent essay for Public Discourse,

It is here that we see the most pernicious examples of Silicon Valley’s genuine, but misguided, compassion. Noor Siddiqui recounts her own mother’s experience as part of her inspiration for launching Orchid’s advanced genetic analysis operation. When Siddiqui was only in high school, she watched as a rare degenerative retinal disease slowly destroyed her mother’s eyesight. This condition, while not life-threatening, altered her mother’s life and left a lasting impact on Noor.

Her solution? The creation of advanced polygenic technology that allows parents to weed out embryos who may develop similar, or worse, conditions. The irony of this, of course, is that this technology does not heal the unhealthy embryos—it destroys them. If such technology had been available and desirable to Siddiqui’s grandparents, it is very possible that neither she nor her mother would have been born. At the end of the day, is the desire for the healthiest child worth the cost of all those whose lives will be deemed unworthy?

In the name of their children living their healthiest life, this technological worldview has trained many in Silicon Valley to view the human person as individual parts or raw material whose genetic makeup predetermines their values, beliefs, capabilities, and identity. Nurture plays a secondary, or unimportant, role in the development of each child. Such conclusions, which ignore both religious insights and sociological findings, enable parents to free themselves from the personal responsibility of stewarding their child’s development. At the same time, it heightens their self-imposed responsibility to create and select genetically superior children.

Embryonic polygenetic screening is a prime example of technology as a substitute, rather than a supplement, for human flourishing. Instead of pursuing treatments that may heal or improve a child’s health, such technology merely discards embryos with potential health problems. 

In Vitro Gametogenesis

The legal structure that governs IVF—namely, that anyone has the right to create and parent a child—sets the legal precedent that emerging reproductive technologies such as in vitro gametogenesis (IVG) will fulfill biologically.

With IVG, doctors can reprogram any human cell into viable egg or sperm. In 2016, Japanese researchers Katsuhiko Hayashi and Mitinori Saitou made history when they announced that they had conceived mice from genetically modified skin cells. Many mice appeared grossly normal and were able to naturally conceive their own pups. While researchers have not successfully replicated this with human DNA, Japanese and American scientists are working on it.

Scholars estimate that science is anywhere from ten to twenty years away from such treatments being available for human use. As NPR’s Rob Stein said, IVG is “IVF 2.0… a revolutionary technology [that is] life-altering for those with infertility.” Indeed, the motivation for developing this technology is two-fold. Hayashi and Saitou, for example, cite their desire to help women who, due to cancer, injury, age, or an at-birth defect, are unable to produce viable eggs. In the United States, researchers at Conception hope to use this technology to enable same-sex couples to achieve joint biological parenthood.

Taken together, procreation would no longer require a distinct man and woman with healthy gametes to create a child: cells from an embryo, child, elderly person, single adult, or group of adults could be used to create viable embryos. Worse, skin cells could be taken from people without their knowledge or consent, including from those who are dead.

As Dr. Sonia Suter of George Washington University highlights, IVG would enable:

• Same-sex couples to have children biologically related to both partners;
• Single individuals to create offspring without needing another genetic contributor; and
• “Multiplex” parenting to emerge, where multiple individuals contribute genetic material to one child.

Such technology, if applied to procreation, would fundamentally alter the Bible’s “package deal” of marriage, sex, and procreation where children are received as a gift within the bond of man-woman marriage. Indeed, it is hard to read the Old or New Testament without stumbling across long generational lists where the Bible describes who begets who begets who. Such verses do not merely serve as a historical reference but reflect a person’s inherent desire to know who they are and from whom they come.

>>> The Reopening of the American Heart

With IVG, generational identity could be lost as multiple generations of embryos are created—and destroyed—within the span of a week. It will be children, unmoored from traditional relationships with their mother, father, and ancestors, who pay the price for our reproductive “progress.”

Conclusion

The future belongs to those who use technology to further reveal God’s good design for human flourishing. This reflects the Cultural Mandate in Genesis 1:28, where God calls man and woman to fruitfully steward His creation—a call that necessarily involves the technological development of tools. Indeed, it is no coincidence that God’s people begin as priests in a garden and end as co-rulers in the eternal city of God.

When men and women champion technologies that affirm or restore the human person—from ultrasounds, life-saving surgeries in utero, and beyond—they actively work to further God’s kingdom on earth. Likewise, when researchers pursue technologies that substitute or destroy the human person—even with the best of intentions—their efforts will ultimately crumble, at great cost to those harmed. Christians must be equipped to defend a biblical anthropology, especially concerning children and the creation of new life. Dystopian developments in reproductive technology will continue to threaten the lives and dignity of unborn children, including those who do not exist yet. Thus, Christians must equip themselves with proper knowledge, understanding, and godly wisdom to thwart these developments in favor of life-giving alternatives.