The Network State Podcast #35 - Noor Siddiqui (January 16, 2026)

Episode Overview

In this thought-provoking episode, Balaji Srinivasan (host, referred to as "A") interviews Noor Siddiqui (founder and CEO of Orchid, referred to as "B") about the future of reproductive technology, specifically focusing on embryo genome screening. They discuss the science and ethics of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), the transformative potential of whole genome embryo screening, and the societal, moral, and political conversations this new tech is spurring. The dialogue moves from technical explanations to the deep philosophical debates about personal choice, regulation, and the nature of technological progress.

Key Topics and Insights

What is Orchid and What Does it Offer?

[01:12 – 05:00]

• Noor explains that Orchid enables parents to screen the entire genome of embryos created via IVF, scanning for thousands of genetic diseases—far beyond the limited information previously available.
  • Traditional embryo screening could only flag chromosome-level issues (like Down syndrome); Orchid’s tech performs whole genome sequencing, reading "every single letter, every single base in those chapters."
• Quote:
  • “What we're able to do is we're able to screen the entire genome of an embryo to scan for thousands of diseases that previously parents didn't have the chance to know about until after the child was born.” (B, [01:12])
• The procedure is performed in vitro during IVF, with cells sampled from the embryo’s outer membrane at the five-day stage (blastocyst).
• The process does not change IVF’s fundamentals—parents have always had to select from multiple embryos for transfer.

Technology: From Chromosome Testing to Whole-Genome Sequencing

[05:00 – 10:00]

• Noor outlines historic limitations:
  • Chromosome testing is like only knowing if your "book" (genome) is missing a whole chapter, not if there are single-letter typos (basepair mutations).
  • Orchid’s sequencing detects both monogenic (single-gene) and polygenic (multi-gene) risks.
• Many rare genetic disorders are individually uncommon but collectively affect about 10% of Americans; most lack treatments.
• Genetic causes play a major role in miscarriages (~50%), infant deaths (over a quarter), and severe intellectual disabilities.
• Quote:
  • “...the maximum amount of suffering you can imagine for a parent and a child, that could just be totally avoided via embryo screening.” (B, [09:24])

Moral Framing: Whose Choice is It?

[03:01 – 14:00]

• Both host and guest agree: If one supports "my body, my choice" (left) or “decentralization and deregulation” (right), the logic should extend to reproductive genomic choices.
  • Parents, not outsiders, should decide which embryos to transfer or screen, just as people choose partners or other aspects of reproduction.
• Noor emphasizes that IVF and pre-implantation decisions are already legal and widespread (millions of IVF births).
• Moving comprehensive screening earlier (before implantation) is more compassionate than post-implantation diagnoses or terminations.
• Quote:
  • "If you're opposed to creating embryos, then you should just be opposed to IVF in general, which is where 12 million plus babies have been born." (B, [04:53])

Practical Compassion: Real Families, Real Stakes

[14:00 – 19:00]

• Noor describes the painful reality for parents with children suffering from devastating, untreatable genetic illnesses—driving home the deep, human need for pre-emptive knowledge and choice.
  • The discussion rejects arguments that “rolling the dice” is compassionate.
• Notable Moment:
  • “It’s honestly... quite cruel to in any way stigmatize these parents... now they want the opportunity to have a child that is healthy, that doesn’t have to suffer like their first child did.” (B, [16:02])
• The hosts compare genetic screening to mundane preventative actions (like wearing seat belts) and dismiss "misery loves company" logic.

Defining the Ethical Questions: Stepwise

[19:21 – 25:00]

1. Should IVF be legal? Already widely accepted.
2. Should pre-implantation genetic diagnosis be legal? It is; already common in medical practice.
3. Why not screen for both macroscopic (chromosomal) and microscopic (single-gene, polygenic) disorders if the tech exists?
4. The greatest “genetic edit” anyone makes is choosing a partner; embryo screening is just a marginal further filter.

• Widespread medical practices (organ transplants, blood transfusions, epidurals) were once stigmatized; today, they’re standard.
• Many “wisdom of repugnance” arguments have proven historically shortsighted.

Scientific Deep Dive: Monogenic and Polygenic Scores

[27:09 – 39:00]

• Noor illustrates how a single base pair can dramatically alter life outcomes (gigantism, achondroplasia)—alluding to the power and precision possible with new screening.
  • Notable Moment:
    “These changes do matter. It could be the difference between your child having a terminal condition or not.” (B, [28:40])
• Explains polygenic risk scores (e.g., heart disease, schizophrenia), optimizing across many variants for disease risk reduction.
• In practice: Even with a small number of embryos (5), families can achieve substantial risk reductions (30%–80%, depending on parental risk and model accuracy).
• Compared to lifelong drug regimens, “fixing it at the genome level” can be safer and more permanent.

Social and Political Landscape

[41:27 – 49:00]

• Recent polling shows overwhelming public support for embryo screening:
  • 72% of Americans approve/strongly approve.
  • 80% believe it should be allowed.
  • Nearly a third would consider IVF to mitigate genetic risk.
• Host notes that this is a far cry from the polarizing (and often negative) social-media discourse.

Quote & Chart Highlights:

• “FYI, 80% of people support embryo screening in a 2024 study.” (A, [46:18])
• The survey shows strong positive sentiment for health conditions (cancer, heart disease, etc.), more mixed for traits (intelligence, BMI), and strongly negative only for skin color.

Macro-Moral Arguments & the Future of Reproductive Technology

[47:21 – 68:00]

• Balaji frames the macro-arguments:
  • The left’s principle: reproductive choice.
  • The right’s: small government and noninterference.
  • Religious arguments can be assembled both for and against, but many faith groups are pragmatically in favor (citing Middle East, Jewish communities, etc.)
  • Resistance is often rooted in emotional reactions, status quo bias, and social media amplification.
  • The true division may be between “futurists” (tech-positive, ascending world) and “primitivists” (tech-skeptic, declining world).
• Noor notes that the stakes for parents are simply too high to be swayed by transient outrage or stigma.

Notable Quotes:

• “Why roll the dice when you’d have to... There’s going to be 5,000 more dice rolls.” (A, [53:16])
• “Primitivism is essentially the new version of communism... If communism was against capitalism, primitivism is against technology.” (A, [59:52])
• “Technology is what makes us human. And reversing technological progress... actually makes us unhuman. It's anti human.” (A, [59:52])

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Screening for Compassion:
  • "It's honestly, I think, quite cruel to in any way stigmatize these parents... this is kind of like the reason why I started the company." (B, [16:02])
• On Societal Resistance:
  • “Primitivism is against technology. And the left will be against capitalists and the right will be against immigrants... The final political axis will be futurism versus primitivism.” (A, [56:24])
• On Progress and Human Nature:
  • "Technology is what makes us human. And reversing technological progress... actually makes us unhuman. It's anti-human." (A, [59:52])

Timestamps for Core Segments

• [01:12] – Noor introduces Orchid’s core technology and purpose
• [03:01] – Moral status of embryos and variations in societal/legal views
• [13:40] – Legal history of IVF, moral questions resolved in practice
• [16:02] – Human impact: families with children affected by rare diseases
• [19:21] – Systematic breakdown of the stepwise moral/ethical questions
• [27:09] – Base pair changes: gigantism, achondroplasia, monogenic disorders
• [31:13] – Polygenic risk scores: modeling, optimization, interpretation
• [41:27] – Polling studies: overwhelming support for screening
• [47:21] – Macro-moral, political, and philosophical arguments
• [58:45] – The original singularity & technology as human essence
• [61:48] – Fragmented future: ascending vs. descending world
• [66:29] – Moral intuitions evolve; gain vs. loss in technological progress

Final Reflections and Takeaways

• Embryo screening is rapidly evolving from a rare, niche procedure to a mainstream, accepted, and even morally compelling option for millions of families.
• Compassionate application of technology helps reduce preventable suffering, aligning with both progressive and libertarian value systems.
• Much of the current resistance is rooted in emotional, historical, and cultural inertia, not in rational or consistent moral principles.
• The future landscape will likely be divided between “ascending” (tech-positive, innovative) and “descending” (tech-skeptical, risk-averse) jurisdictions, much as we already see with issues like crypto or AI.
• Genetics is no longer destiny: parents now have the real option to lower risk for serious disorders without government or societal intervention—if they choose.

Closing Thought:
As Noor summarizes: their mission is not about stigma or eugenics, but about giving parents and children the best odds for a healthy, full life—echoing the episode’s thread: “It’s a very human desire... to see your child grow up, grow old, rather than having to bury them.” ([16:02])

For further reading: Noor references a key 2024 paper on public attitudes toward embryo screening ([43:45]–[46:11]), and promises to share more resources and slides with Balaji and the podcast audience.