Walking through the Broadway-Lafayette subway station in New York City often feels like a stroll through a shifting gallery of modern life. One moment, you’re gazing at a shimmering ad for the latest makeup trend, promising beauty and transformation. The next, the digital billboard seamlessly transitions to something far more profound, yet presented with the same casual confidence: an ad for Pickyourbaby.com, nudging prospective parents towards “genetic optimization.”
The juxtaposition is startling, isn’t it? One sells a cosmetic enhancement for your face; the other, an influence over the very traits of your unborn child. This isn’t science fiction anymore. It’s on subway turnstiles, wrapped around staircases, and plastered on banners overhead, all part of a campaign to bring genetic trait selection into the mainstream. It’s a brave new world being pitched to us, not in hushed scientific forums, but with the brazen familiarity of a consumer product.
The Sizzle of Selection: From Labs to Laypeople
At the heart of this audacious advertising blitz is Nucleus Genomics, a startup founded by Kian Sadeghi. His vision? To make genetic optimization as accessible and accepted as buying a new lipstick. Nucleus offers to analyze genetic tests on IVF embryos, scoring them for a staggering 2,000 traits and disease risks. Parents, armed with this data, could then theoretically pick and choose, influencing their baby’s eye color, hair color, or even IQ.
Sadeghi sees this as a natural progression. He talks about “normalizing it,” likening his platform to Uber Eats for babies, or Airbnb for linking customers to clinics. This isn’t about the intricate science of DNA, he clarifies, but about selling the “sizzle” – the appealing outcomes. And what sizzles, according to their ads, are attributes like height, intelligence, and light-colored eyes. These aren’t just subtle suggestions; they’re bold statements like “Height is 80% genetic” and “IQ is 50% genetic,” emblazoned for all commuters to see.
It’s a powerful strategy, aiming to bypass the gatekeepers of the medical establishment. Many leading IVF clinics, for good reason, still refuse to offer these kinds of tests. They worry about the unreliability of genetic predictions for complex traits, the potential for unrealistic parental expectations, and the ethical quagmire. But if consumer demand reaches a fever pitch, as companies like Nucleus and Orchid suggest, doctors might find themselves “shoved in the direction of using it,” as one founder put it, simply to retain patients.
Normalizing What, Exactly? Beyond Health, Towards “Perfection”
This is where the conversation takes a turn. On one hand, the ability to screen embryos for serious disease risks could genuinely lead to healthier generations. That’s a noble pursuit, and most of us would agree on its value. But the current marketing focuses less on debilitating illnesses and more on traits that nudge us towards a very different kind of selection. When the ads highlight height and IQ, the public’s mind naturally gravitates towards cosmetic choices and, perhaps more troublingly, towards a subtle form of discrimination.
Think about it: “I can have a taller, smarter, healthier baby,” as Sadeghi himself muses. While “healthier” sounds universally good, “taller” and “smarter” venture into subjective territory. They imply that certain traits are inherently superior, creating a societal pressure to conform to an idealized, genetically “optimized” standard. It’s less about preventing suffering and more about striving for a perceived perfection.
The core issue here is the “sizzle” versus the “steak.” Nucleus isn’t selling you a detailed scientific breakdown; they’re selling you a dream of a particular kind of child, neatly packaged and presented. It’s the emotional appeal, the aspirational fantasy of having the “best baby,” whatever that term might come to mean in this brave new world. And in that dream, certain traits are implicitly, or explicitly, favored over others.
The Slippery Slope of “Choice”
This pursuit of idealized traits raises serious questions about the implications for diversity and acceptance. If everyone starts selecting for similar characteristics, what does that do to the rich tapestry of human variation? It’s a concept that feels eerily close to eugenics, even if framed as parental “choice.”
Moreover, the predictions for complex traits like IQ are far from foolproof. What happens if little Johnny doesn’t live up to the projected IQ score his embryo was chosen for? The psychological burden on both child and parents could be immense, creating a new kind of pressure for children to embody their genetic scores rather than flourish as unique individuals.
Where Do We Draw the Line? Advertising and Discrimination
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) in New York City, it turns out, isn’t entirely on board with all aspects of this genetic marketing push. They actually objected to certain ads, like those explicitly saying “Have a girl” or “Have a boy.” Why? Because MTA policy forbids using government-owned infrastructure to promote “invidious discrimination” against protected classes, which include biological sex.
This is a crucial point. If advocating for one sex over another is considered discriminatory, what about advocating for height? New York City, since 2023, has included height and weight in its anti-discrimination laws, aiming to “root out bias” related to body size. Yet, the MTA permitted Nucleus to declare “Height is 80% genetic” without issue. The distinction, perhaps, lies in it being presented as a factual claim rather than an explicit call to action.
But we, as human beings, are pretty good at reading between the lines. When a company advertises the genetic basis of height and offers a service for trait selection, the implied message is crystal clear: pick the tall one. The shorter embryo, by unspoken extension, remains in the IVF freezer, never to be born. It’s a subtle but powerful form of suggestion, cloaked in scientific fact.
The power of advertising has always been its ability to create desires and shape perceptions. From selling us a lifestyle with a new car to promising confidence with a new perfume, ads tap into our aspirations. But when those aspirations begin to redefine human potential and influence the very fabric of our future generations, the responsibility of what we allow to be advertised, and how, becomes critically important. It forces us to confront not just what technology can do, but what it should do.
The Future is Now, But Whose Future?
The ads selling the sizzle of genetic trait discrimination are more than just clever marketing; they are heralds of a new era. They bring a once-secretive, complex technology out of the Silicon Valley echo chambers and into our everyday lives, normalizing the idea of selecting human traits as if scrolling through an online menu. This push forces us to grapple with profound ethical questions, challenging our definitions of diversity, acceptance, and the very essence of what it means to be human.
As we navigate this rapidly evolving landscape, the conversation can’t just be left to entrepreneurs and investors. It needs to involve all of us – parents, doctors, policymakers, and concerned citizens. Because while technology offers incredible potential, it also carries the weight of immense responsibility. What kind of future are we optimizing for, and who gets to decide what the “best baby” truly means?
