The Genetically Savvy Startup: Dissecting the Fine Line Between Innovation and Eugenics

The founder of the startup Orchid, Noor Siddiqui, defends her service of allowing parents to choose embryos with desired genes, vehemently denying any connection to eugenics, despite the practice's association with selecting for "Good genes." In a recent interview with Wired, Siddiqui argued that the screening process aims to reduce suffering by altering genetic outcomes, although critics warn of potential ethical implications. As discussions veered into personal scenarios, the debate surrounding genetic selection in reproductive technology continued, shedding light on the complexities of this controversial issue.

Sophia Chen April 18, 2024

In a recent intriguing development in the world of biotech, a former Thiel fellow has made headlines by launching a startup that allows parents to select which embryos to incubate based on their genetic makeup. Noor Siddiqui, the 29-year-old founder of Orchid, is adamant that this practice should not be equated with eugenics, despite the striking similarities. It’s worth noting that “eugenics” itself means “good genes,” adding an ironic twist to the debate.

In a widely discussed interview with Wired, Siddiqui passionately discussed her mission to reduce suffering by screening embryos’ genomes. She painted a futuristic picture of altering one’s family line to prevent future individuals from being born with certain conditions. Drawing a personal connection, she mused that if her maternal grandparents had access to Orchid’s services and chosen an embryo that wouldn’t go blind, both she and her mother might not have existed. The notion seemed to touch a nerve with Siddiqui, who defensively stated, “I mean, I’m not deleting my mom.”

Despite Siddiqui’s well-meaning intentions, critics continue to question the ethical implications of choosing embryos based on their genetic traits. Orchid stands out from competitors by offering a comprehensive genome sequencing of embryos for a hefty price tag of $2,500 per embryo. This exclusive service has already attracted a secretive list of clientele, raising eyebrows about the potential implications of such technology.

The interview also touched upon sensitive topics such as population decline and the infamous case of Theranos, which elicited a response from Siddiqui labeling it as “mean.” The conversation underscored the emotional complexities surrounding genetic selection as a consumer service, shedding light on the contrasting perspectives within the biotech community.

The exchange with Siddiqui serves as a poignant reminder of the divergent worldviews among biotech entrepreneurs and the unforeseen implications of advancing technologies. The concept of genetic selection as a commercial service has quietly permeated society, prompting discussions on the fine line between improving human health and inadvertently treading into ethically murky waters. As society grapples with the implications of genetic advancements, the debate spurred by Siddiqui’s startup underscores the need for thoughtful reflection and ethical considerations in navigating the intersection of technology and human life.