Designer Babies, IQ Selection and the Future of Human Genetics | Jonathan Anomaly

Overview

The video is a debate-style discussion in which Jonathan Anomaly promotes genetic selection/enhancement (often associated with eugenics). He argues it should be framed around individual choice and cognitive/trait diversity, rather than state coercion.

---

1) Defending “eugenics” by reframing it as individual choice

• Jonathan Anomaly openly embraces the term eugenics, placing his views in a Galtonian tradition:
  • Heredity explains differences among people.
  • Society should use genetic knowledge to create “better combinations,” likened to how chemistry improves molecules.
• He emphasizes a separation from historical state eugenics:
  • His preferred framing is genetic enhancement guided by parents’ decisions, not forced sterilization or violence.
• He argues that debates often collapse distinctions:
  • Even if language changes (“enhancement” vs. “eugenics”), opponents/journalists may treat them as the same.
  • The discussion should instead focus on underlying values, which he repeatedly frames as individual choice.

---

2) Critique of IQ-only thinking; argument for broader cognitive diversity

Anomaly argues against two extremes:

• On the right: IQ discourse can overemphasize IQ as if it explains everything.
• On the left: intelligence and other mental traits are real and partly heritable, and denial is ideologically driven.

He proposes cognitive diversity, suggesting selection should consider:

• Multiple cognitive dimensions
• Personality and trait variation
• Not just a single IQ number

Key points he makes include:

• He rejects Howard Gardner’s “multiple intelligences” as a formal theory, but says there’s “something behind” the intuition.
• He points to other partly heritable dimensions such as:
  • Personality (e.g., Big Five traits)
  • Cognitive abilities not fully captured by IQ tests (e.g., verbal, spatial, etc.)

---

3) Heritability claims and why the debate persists

Anomaly discusses nature vs nurture as varying by trait type:

• For single-gene conditions (e.g., BRCA-related breast cancer), effects on risk can be extremely large.
• For polygenic traits (complex diseases and behaviors), genetic contributions are smaller and interact with the environment.

He argues that academic denial is driven by a post–World War II ideological package:

• People may deny heritability publicly while acting as if it’s true privately.
• Acknowledging heritability, he claims, is necessary to avoid politics becoming “hopeless” or internally inconsistent.

---

4) Polygenic embryo selection (e.g., “Hera site”): how it’s supposed to work

The discussion shifts to embryo screening and polygenic scores:

• Use embryo genetic profiles to estimate likelihoods of traits/diseases.
• Choose which embryos to implant.

Regarding IQ as a metric, he argues:

• IQ tests are empirically studied and correlate with life outcomes.
• The “how much is genetic?” question is ideally answered by twin studies (he credits Francis Galton with the idea behind twin designs).

He also claims embryo IQ estimates can differ meaningfully:

• He cites an example where average adult IQ could vary by ~32 points across embryos (as estimated).

To counter “roulette/dowsing” criticism:

• He argues the key validation is whether companies publish predictive accuracy, emphasizing:
  • Published metrics such as R-squared
  • Validation in adult siblings, not only broad associations

---

5) Data quality across ancestry as a limiting factor

He explains why prediction quality can vary by ancestry:

• Unequal access to large biobanks
• Unequal availability of linked medical and phenotype data

He references major resources such as:

• UK Biobank

He says his company aims to validate scores across ancestries to calibrate predictions for mixed and non-European backgrounds.

---

6) The future of reproductive genetics (IVG, artificial wombs, gene editing)

Anomaly describes a phased future:

1. Near-term: technologies like Gameto to streamline IVF
   • He estimates “a few years” for near-term adoption depending on regulation.
2. Next: IVG (in vitro gametogenesis)
   • Turning adult cells into stem cells, then producing eggs/sperm-like gametes
   • He frames “turning blood into many eggs” as a conceptual milestone.
3. Gene editing: portrayed as harder and slower for complex, polygenic traits
   • Multiplex editing increases risks of:
     • Errors / off-target effects
   • He suggests selection via screening may be more feasible for long-term trait optimization than large-scale editing.

He also discusses:

• De novo mutations
• The need for genome checks if advanced gamete/IVG processes raise mutation risks

---

7) “Maxing” and the “unnatural result” argument

The interviewer raises concerns about “maxing” (optimizing offspring) and whether it makes humans “unnatural.”

Anomaly responds provocatively:

• He says he hates nature, arguing progress means resisting natural constraints.
• Examples he cites include:
  • Antibiotics, vaccines, ventilators, Neuralink
• His claim: improving outcomes is the point.

He invokes intellectual history (Mill/Nietzsche) to argue societies benefit from:

• “Highest specimens”
• Experimentation rather than preserving the status quo

---

8) Social consequences: dating, monogamy, and the “polygenic revolution”

He predicts genetic enhancement/selection could reshape mating patterns:

• Sexual selection already leads many women to be more selective in long-term partners.
• He suggests that successful women might increasingly use sperm donors rather than finding suitable partners.
• He expects this could accelerate as polygenic screening improves.

More broadly, he claims polygenic information could undermine “blank slate” ideology by affecting:

• Partner choice
• Medical diagnosis
• How society interprets ability and behavior

---

9) Addressing moral objections: disability, pleiotropy, and tradeoffs

Anomaly addresses objections that parents may value disability:

• He frames this as a form of coping.
• He distinguishes between:
  • Down syndrome
  • Fatal disorders like Tay-Sachs
• He emphasizes a welfare-based reasoning approach.

A major scientific concern he addresses is pleiotropy:

• Genes influence multiple traits.
• Selecting against one condition may have unintended effects elsewhere.

He argues companies should publish pleiotropy risks/benefits and claims that, based on his view:

• Pleiotropy in offered selections tends to be neutral or positive on average

He also notes tradeoffs from extreme optimization (e.g., “height-maxing” can worsen other health outcomes).

---

10) Free-market question and what he’d resist for adults

When asked whether adult-related markets should be removed from free-market dynamics:

• He expresses concern that some technologies might harm society by weakening family structures.
• Still, he argues the embryo selection/genetics revolution has major benefits:
  • Reduced disease risk
  • Improved trait prospects
  • Cultural shift away from the blank-slate doctrine

---

Presenters / contributors

• Jonathan Anomaly (guest; speaker)
  • Discusses eugenics/genetic enhancement, IQ and cognitive diversity, polygenic embryo selection, and IVG/gene-editing timelines
• Amanda Cassat (Endgame) (host/interviewer)