How will you resolve? What was the number for 2023?

@na_pewno 0 lol

@Lorxus The first child born using polygenic screening was born in 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/oct/17/polygenic-screening-of-embryos-is-here-but-is-it-ethical

@na_pewno sure but I'm saying my genuine estimate of how many in 2023 is... still ~0.

@Lorxus Anyway, on Dec 5, 2023 Orchid has annunced "whole genome screening for embryos is available" for the general public so by the end of 2024 there will be a substantial number of conceptions, and I'm not sure if we will be able to estimate it within a reasonably narrow range then. I guess we're counting on relevant information being revealed in news articles and stuff.

People who are into this kinda stuff don't have kids

@FergusArgyll Simone and Malcolm Collins have lots of kids. Diana Fleischmann and Geoffrey Miller have at least two already.

@FergusArgyll "The people who are into this stuff' is currently a small circle. The market is mostly on whether or not this form of conception will greatly increase in popularity.

the simplest way to have a big positive impact here is to do a full genome of both parents and the embryos and exclude the embryos with more de novo mutations

@JonathanRay de novo mutations reduce IQ by like a few points per decade of paternal age

@JonathanRay If that was true wouldn't we be seeing massive dysgenics from paternal age effect?

@JonathanRay If that was true wouldn't we be seeing massive dysgenics from paternal age effect?

@JonathanRay If that was true wouldn't we be seeing massive dysgenics from paternal age effect?

If that was true wouldn't we be seeing massive dysgenics from paternal age effect?

@nathanwei yes, paternal age causes a large fraction of all de novo mutations and is massively dysgenic. The Ottoman Empire jumped the shark about the same time they switched to agnatic seniority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnatic_seniority

Have we been seeing a reverse in the Flynn effect from paternal age effects?

@nathanwei flynn effect is improvement in environment and general test-taking-skills, which masks a slower decline genetics

Aren't miscarriages eugenic though? Doesn't that balance it out? Isn't something with high enough mutational load unable to implant in the first place? Isn't the implantation process eugenic too?

And increase in parental age at least also increases IVF demand, which is very eugenic in some sense and could way more than balance the other effects.

@nathanwei Pre-industrial-revolution (circa 1800) there was probably approximate balance between de novo mutations and purifying selection, but then child mortality rates dropped precipitously and mutational load started increasing. Total drop in genetic potential since then is probably in the high single digit IQ points

@JonathanRay Surely at some point miscarriages would kick in and the effect will stop? Do we have any evidence? I could also imagine other things that would push this in the opposite direction. Say that are a few mutations that are awful for health (say 10 points) and also mildly bad for intelligence (say 1 point). Then their existence will select strongly for +health on the rest of the genome, whether because of miscarriages or child mortality. If the health-IQ correlation on the rest of the genome is 0.5, then this existence of this mutation would actually be eugenic. I guess this is a potential toy model for at least one thesis about what happened with the Ashkenazi population.

Anyway, I would want to see evidence backing up these claims. This is all a bunch of speculation. We know how polygenic scores work. But do we know so much about the effect of de novo mutations? Again, even if a mutation by itself is dysgenic, it's not clear if there is a counterbalancing or perhaps even greater eugenic effect from miscarriages or some such.

If businesses start offering this in 2024 and get 2000 people to do it, and then double that number every year, it would give roughly 2000 * 2 ^ 7 ~= 128k total by 2030. Which meets this condition.

I've heard of startups working on this now, so it seems plausible. But a lot has to go right, including avoiding regulation and scaling at a breakneck pace. Plus, I don't think 2000 next year is that likely either? I was going to bet this up, but just sold out, down to 42%.

@JamesGrugett It is not hypothetical -- companies like LifeView and Orchid Health are currently offering this service to paying customers, today. I also don't think scaling will be a huge problem; IMO it'll be more about demand / whether people are aware of this new option. The questions in my mind are:

1. Will enough people who are already doing IVF (see @MatthewRitter's comment below) choose to use these services? If there are 500K IVF births happening in the USA by 2030, we'd need 20% of those to choose embryo selection -- seems like a tall order for something that's currently niche, but sometimes seemingly-niche medical things can take off when the benefits are large (see the recent Wegovy / Ozempic craze)!

2. LifeView and Orchid Health and pals will probably try to keep a low profile and avoid inciting any political controversies, so I doubt they'll be too eager to crow about their customer growth statistics. If everyone stays pretty private about the prevalence of PGT embryo selection, how will we get the info necessary to resolve this market? @DeanValentine , thoughts?

@JamesGrugett don't think doubling every year is the right model. More like it goes from 0-100,000 in 2-3 years. IT startup founders index too much on growth curves of sites like Facebook. Actual tech leaps propagate pretty quickly in the modern age.