Silicon Valley sets its sights on building the perfect baby – Fortune

Report on Advanced Reproductive Technologies and Their Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

The emergence of advanced reproductive technologies (ARTs), including polygenic embryo screening and gene editing, presents a complex landscape in the context of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). While these innovations offer significant potential for advancing SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), they simultaneously pose profound challenges to SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). The rapid pace of development, aligned with SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure), is creating a regulatory and ethical vacuum, underscoring a critical need for governance frameworks as envisioned in SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions).

Technological Contributions to SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

Innovations in fertility technology, particularly in embryo screening, directly contribute to the objectives of SDG 3 by offering new methods for disease prevention and improving health outcomes from the earliest stage of life.

Disease Prevention through Preimplantation Genetic Screening

Startups such as Herasight and Orchid Health are utilizing whole genome sequencing and polygenic risk scoring to screen embryos for a wide range of health conditions. This proactive approach to health aligns with the goal of reducing premature mortality from non-communicable diseases (Target 3.4).

• Screening can identify predispositions to inherited diseases, including cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, and genetic deafness.
• Risk analysis extends to complex conditions such as Types 1 and 2 diabetes, certain childhood and adult cancers (e.g., via BRCA gene mutations), schizophrenia, and autoimmune disorders.
• Prospective parents are utilizing this technology to mitigate the risk of passing on known familial conditions, such as Alzheimer’s disease or mental health disorders like depression.

Potential for Improved IVF Outcomes and Maternal Health

By identifying chromosomal abnormalities, which are responsible for a significant percentage of first-trimester miscarriages, embryo screening aims to increase the success rate of IVF procedures. This contributes to the broader goals of SDG 3 by:

1. Reducing the emotional and physical toll of pregnancy loss on families.
2. Prioritizing embryos with a higher likelihood of leading to a successful pregnancy and healthy birth.

Socio-Economic Implications and Challenges to SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The proliferation of ARTs raises significant concerns regarding social equity, as their high cost and limited accessibility threaten to widen the gap between socioeconomic groups, directly challenging the core principle of SDG 10.

The Emergence of a Genetic Divide

The concentration of these technologies in affluent regions like the Bay Area, backed by significant wealth and venture capital, suggests that access is primarily limited to high-income individuals. This creates a risk of exacerbating social stratification.

• The high cost of IVF and additional screening services makes them prohibitive for a majority of the global population.
• This disparity could lead to a future where affluent populations can select for genetic health advantages, creating a new dimension of inequality.

Screening for Non-Medical Traits and Reinforcing Social Bias

The capability of some firms to screen for non-medical traits introduces complex ethical issues that could undermine efforts to ensure equal opportunity (Target 10.3).

• Screening is being offered for cosmetic and developmental traits such as height, IQ, body mass index, and musical ability.
• Bioethicists warn that this practice could lead to parents viewing children as “products” with expected outcomes, potentially limiting a child’s autonomy.
• Selecting for socially valued traits may reinforce existing biases and create new forms of discrimination, contrary to the goal of reducing inequalities.

Innovation, Regulation, and Institutional Challenges (SDG 9 & SDG 16)

The fertility technology sector is a prime example of rapid innovation, but this growth is occurring faster than the development of necessary legal and ethical oversight, highlighting a tension between SDG 9 and SDG 16.

Investment and Innovation in Fertility Technology

The global IVF industry is a nascent $28 billion market, with investment in related technologies reaching $2 billion in 2024, a 55% increase over the previous year. This rapid expansion of a technology-driven industry aligns with the objectives of SDG 9.

• Advancements are being driven by data science, artificial intelligence, and automated IVF processes.
• Billionaire investors are funding research into more controversial areas, including embryo editing, pushing the boundaries of scientific possibility.

Ethical and Regulatory Gaps

The report notes a significant “regulatory and ethical vacuum,” as legal frameworks have failed to keep pace with technological advancements. This lack of governance poses a risk to building effective and accountable institutions (SDG 16).

• The process of embryo editing, which involves irreversible changes to the human germline, is illegal or restricted in over 70 countries but continues to attract investment and research.
• Experts observe that “technology will always outpace the law,” creating an urgent need for international dialogue and the establishment of robust ethical guidelines to ensure these powerful technologies are developed and deployed responsibly.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: The article’s central theme is the use of advanced reproductive technologies like IVF and embryo screening to prevent diseases and improve health outcomes. It discusses screening for inherited diseases, cancers, mental health conditions, and other health-related traits, directly aligning with the goal of ensuring healthy lives.
• SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure: The text heavily focuses on the technological innovation within the fertility industry. It highlights the role of startups (Herasight, Orchid Health), significant financial investment (“$2 billion” in 2024), scientific research, and the development of new technologies like polygenic screening, AI-enabled IVF, and gene editing.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The article implies a growing inequality based on economic status. The high cost of these technologies, their concentration in wealthy areas like the Bay Area, and backing from “billionaires” suggest that access is limited. This could create a genetic divide between those who can afford to screen for diseases and desirable traits and those who cannot, exacerbating social and economic inequalities.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions: The article explicitly points to a “regulatory and ethical vacuum” where “Technology will always outpace the law.” This highlights a failure or lag in institutional governance. The mention that embryo editing is “illegal in 70 countries” further underscores the global challenge of creating laws and strong institutions to manage these powerful biomedical technologies ethically.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 3.4: By 2030, reduce by one-third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases through prevention and treatment and promote mental health and well-being.
  • Explanation: The article details how companies like Herasight and Orchid Health screen embryos for risks of “inherited diseases, childhood cancers, schizophrenia, autism, and Types 1 and 2 diabetes,” as well as “mental health conditions like depression.” This is a direct application of technology for the prevention of non-communicable diseases and the promotion of mental health from the embryonic stage.
• Target 9.5: Enhance scientific research, upgrade the technological capabilities of industrial sectors…encouraging innovation and substantially increasing…public and private research and development spending.
  • Explanation: The article is a showcase of this target in action. It reports that 2024 was the “largest year for investment at $2 billion, a 55% increase over 2023” in IVF-related tech. It also describes numerous startups and researchers developing new methods, backed by significant private investment from figures like Brian Armstrong and Sam Altman’s husband.
• Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices.
  • Explanation: The article raises concerns that directly challenge this target. The high cost and accessibility of these technologies, primarily to a clientele of “extreme wealth,” risk creating a new form of inequality of outcome based on genetics. The potential for “designer babies” could lead to discrimination and reduce equal opportunity for those conceived without such interventions.
• Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
  • Explanation: The article’s statement that the “rapid pace of innovation and investment has created a regulatory and ethical vacuum” directly points to the absence of effective and accountable institutions to govern this emerging field. The observation that “law and regulations…trail behind” technology further emphasizes the need to develop such institutional frameworks.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• For Target 3.4:
  • Indicator: Reduction in disease risk. The article provides a specific, quantifiable indicator from the company Herasight, which claims its published studies show it can “reduce disease risks by 20% to 44% when selecting among five embryos.”
  • Indicator: Prevalence of genetic screening for specific conditions. The article mentions screening for a list of diseases including “sickle cell anemia or cystic fibrosis,” “Alzheimer’s,” “autism spectrum disorder,” and “BRCA gene mutation,” implying that the uptake of screening for these specific conditions could be measured.
• For Target 9.5:
  • Indicator: Private investment in research and development. The article provides precise figures: “investment in women’s health and IVF-related tech startups…at $2 billion, a 55% increase over 2023.” It also mentions specific funding rounds, such as the startup Preventive raising “$30 million.”
• For Target 10.3:
  • Indicator: Cost of access to technology. The article implies this indicator by repeatedly mentioning the high costs (“investing thousands”) and the wealthy demographic of users (“concentration of extreme wealth,” “billionaires backing fertility tech startups”), which can be used to measure the affordability and accessibility gap.
• For Target 16.6:
  • Indicator: Existence of national legislation and regulation. The article provides a clear indicator by stating that embryo editing is “illegal in 70 countries or banned through funding restrictions.” The presence or absence of such laws in different countries can be used to measure the development of regulatory institutions.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: fortune.com