Nucleus Genomics, a genetic testing company founded by 25-year-old entrepreneur Kian Sadeghi, has ignited fierce criticism following the launch of its latest offering, Nucleus Embryo. Initially making headlines upon its debut in 2021, the startup promised to deliver insights into patients’ risks for various diseases based on their genetics. Over time, Nucleus gained notoriety for products claiming to predict complex traits such as intelligence from genetic profiles, a practice many scientists have sharply criticized as ethically troubling and scientifically dubious.
The current controversy revolves around the newly announced “Nucleus Embryo,” a platform intended to assist prospective parents undergoing IVF treatment in selecting embryos based upon predictions of genetic attributes. Nucleus claimed through social media that this novel engagement allows parents, for the first time, to provide their future children with genetic advantages unattainable in previous generations. According to the company, its genetic testing capabilities extend beyond well-established disease markers, such as those indicating a high likelihood of breast cancer, to predictions involving physical appearance—including sex, eye color, hair color, height—as well as complex psychological and cognitive conditions such as anxiety, ADHD, and even intelligence.
In its promotional materials, Nucleus featured sample screens displaying side-by-side comparisons of embryos, implicitly suggesting that it could provide the means for parents to select preferred genetic attributes in their offspring. Such promises immediately sparked backlash, with many critics denouncing the company for promoting practices akin to “designer baby” technologies. Within hours of the announcement, the Twitter post advertising the platform had reached millions of users and attracted widespread condemnation and disbelief.
The core of the criticism lies in Nucleus’ reliance on polygenic scores, controversial statistical measures designed to predict the probability of complex outcomes from multiple genetic markers. While genetic screening for specific disorders—such as Down syndrome or cystic fibrosis—has long been a widely accepted medical practice, polygenic scoring remains contested. Scientists regularly caution that these scores indicate general probabilities rather than definitive, individual outcomes. According to the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), polygenic scores have yet to be recommended broadly by healthcare providers due to the complexity and uncertainty inherent in their results.
A spokesperson for Nucleus defended the technology, highlighting academic research that validated certain polygenic methods concerning specific diseases such as coronary artery disease and diabetes. Yet, critics argue that applying these probabilistic tools to complex traits like intelligence or anxiety, particularly with the ultimate purpose of selecting embryos, ventures dangerously close to ethically contentious eugenics territory.
This is not the first time Nucleus Genomics has found itself under scrutiny for controversial offerings. Last year, the company attracted criticism for its “Nucleus IQ” product, which claimed to estimate how strongly genetic factors contribute to a person’s intelligence. Amidst widespread skepticism from scientists, Sadeghi vigorously defended the company’s methods publicly, underscoring his belief in genetics’ predictive power.
In practical terms, Nucleus remains distanced from direct involvement in embryo selections conducted in IVF clinics, partnering instead with Genomic Prediction, a company serving fertility centers directly. While Genomic Prediction maintains it does not offer intelligence-based tests, parents seeking these kinds of insights may voluntarily provide genetic information to Nucleus separately.
Despite substantial outcry, Sadeghi is undaunted. In a statement connected to the launch, he compared the acceptance trajectory of genetic screening directly to the initial controversy surrounding early IVF techniques decades ago. Emphasizing the inevitability and permanence of these technological advancements, Sadeghi predicted that genetic optimization, regardless of present discomfort, would soon become as common and accepted as IVF itself.
