Early Career Researchers Propose Ethical Best Practices in Response to IQ Embryo Selection and Race-Based Genetics

A new Comment article published in Nature Human Behaviour warns that social science and behavioural genetics (SBG) stands “at a critical juncture” as concerns grow over the misuse of genetic research, the rise of commercial embryo selection for IQ and other mental-behavioural traits, and renewed interest in race-based genetic analyses.

The article — “Early career researcher-led best practices for social science and behavioural genetics” — is led by early career researchers from institutions across Europe and calls for “a more proactive, united response from the SBG community itself” to address the field’s historical eugenic legacy and present-day societal impact.

The authors note that multiple direct-to-consumer companies now offer polygenic embryo screening for traits including IQ, appearance, and educational attainment, despite “known validity issues.” At the same time, leading geneticists have raised concerns over a rise in “race science” and race-based genetic analyses, while cuts to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives risk narrowing critical oversight.

The paper argues that findings in SBG remain vulnerable to “misinterpretation,” “genetic essentialism,” and “violent misappropriation,” particularly when complex statistical associations are framed in deterministic ways. The authors stress that polygenic indices, DNA-based statistical predictors of genetic contributions to variation in trait expression, are typically “highly time and context-specific,” capture only a fraction of heritable variation, and often reflect both genetic and environmental factors.

Alongside calls for clearer communication and stronger ethics training, the article recommends greater public engagement, participatory research practices, and clearer guidance from scientific societies on the use of polygenic scores in embryo selection and other non-clinical applications.

LCDS author Vincent Straub said:

“Findings from genetics to study sensitive traits cannot be separated from the social contexts in which they are interpreted and applied. As publicly funded scientists, we see it as our responsibility to advocate for the field to proactively move from acknowledging its eugenic legacy to preventing current and future harms.”

The authors argue that, in order for the outlined steps to help achieve unifying best practices, "the next step is for institutions to embed these into research culture".

You can read the article here.