[Hannah Devlin, Tom Burgis, David Pegg and Jason Wilson at The Guardian]

Quite a disturbing new startup coming to light in The Guardian:

“The footage appears to show experimental genetic selection techniques being advertised to prospective parents. A Heliospect employee, who has been helping the company recruit clients, outlined how couples could rank up to 100 embryos based on “IQ and the other naughty traits that everybody wants”, including sex, height, risk of obesity and risk of mental illness.”

Eugenics is a discredited, troubling idea, and the startup’s claims are akin to junk science, even if the underlying data was drawn from UK Biobank, which seems like a great resource when used for good. Still, the startup is clearly out there offering its services, while using a regulatory arbitrage strategy (operating between jurisdictions to exploit legal differences and finding ways to exploit loopholes in the law) that isn’t a million miles away from techniques used by startups like Uber, and throwing up all kinds of ethical questions in the process.

A major figure in the startup is Jonathan Anomaly (his real name), who has been advocating for “liberal eugenics” for some time:

“Anomaly is a well-known figure in a growing transatlantic movement that promotes development of genetic selection and enhancement tools, which he says should not be confused with coercive state-sponsored eugenics. “All we mean by [liberal eugenics] is that parents should be free and maybe even encouraged to use technology to improve their children’s prospects once it’s available,” he told the podcast The Dissenter.”

Of course, eugenics isn’t controversial or unethical solely when it’s forcibly done by the government. As the article notes:

“Katie Hasson, associate director of the Center for Genetics and Society, in California, said: “One of the biggest problems is that it normalises this idea of ‘superior’ and ‘inferior’ genetics.” The rollout of such technologies, she said, “reinforces the belief that inequality comes from biology rather than social causes”.”

Enough ink has been spilled on science fiction stories that describe the effects of exactly this startup’s mission that the founders should have understood they were building a biotech torment nexus: something that was described in fiction as a technology that must never be built for the good of humanity, lest we fall victim to both intended and unintended consequences. Regardless, if someone can build it, they eventually will, and here we are.

There’s a related ethical question raised here, which related to who, exactly, should have access to biological research data. It turns out that UK Biobank also gave access to its database to a race science group. Should it have? Or should there be ethical safeguards on these databases? I’m more inclined to say that knowledge bases should be as open access as possible, but the implications for use by eugenicists and racist groups are pretty dire.

#Technology

[Link]