Unexplainable (Vox) – "Superbabies?"

Release Date: January 12, 2026
Host: Noam Hassenfeld
Guest: Seagal Samuel (Vox Reporter, "Your Mileage May Vary" advice column)
Theme: The Moral and Scientific Dilemmas of Embryo Genetic Screening

Episode Overview

This episode delves into the growing trend of genetic screening of embryos during in vitro fertilization (IVF), examining the ethical, social, and scientific questions that arise as parents gain increasing power to select for traits like health, intelligence, or even a child’s sex. Host Noam Hassenfeld and guest Seagal Samuel engage in a thoughtful exploration of whether parents “owe” their future children the best possible shot at life—and what “best” really means.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Seagal Samuel’s Value Pluralism Approach

• [01:08] Seagal introduces her advice column, built on the philosophical idea of value pluralism, the tension between multiple, conflicting values like honesty vs. kindness.
  • Quote: “Those values are often in tension with each other... you might have conflicting values in a situation like honesty versus loyalty or honesty versus kindness.” – Seagal Samuel [01:52]
• She relates her own struggles with moral “optimization” and how the pressure to always “do the most good” can be emotionally exhausting.

2. The Reader’s Dilemma: What Does a Parent Owe Their Child?

• [02:45] Seagal reads a letter from a prospective parent grappling with choices about genetic embryo testing:

  • Standard PGT-A testing checks for Down syndrome and reveals embryo sex.

  • Newer polygenic screenings promise insights on intelligence, height, health risks.

  • Reader feels both hope and unease, worried about “over-medicalizing” parenthood and the ethical shadows of eugenics.

  • Quote: “On the one hand, it feels weirdly eugenicsy to do so much tinkering... But then again, if I could do something to make my baby healthier and happier, don't I kind of have to do everything in my power?” – Letter from Reader [02:45]

3. How Embryo Genetic Screening Works

• [05:00] Polygenic screening profiles each embryo for numerous traits and risk factors.

  • Quote: “They're gonna give you, like, a little chart... for each embryo they're gonna say this one, 12% more risk of diabetes, but minus 13 risk of schizophrenia, increased IQ potentially...” – Seagal Samuel [05:09]

• [05:52] Differentiating standard (PGT-A) and polygenic (newer, more complex, less certain) testing.

• [06:33] Tests for psychiatric traits and IQ rely on correlation, with much less certainty than for clear genetic mutations.

  • Quote: “A lot of people have overemphasized how much we know genetically about this.” – Seagal Samuel [06:33]

4. Limitations, Risks, and Misconceptions of Polygenic Screening

• [07:18] Medical claims can mislead; a small percentage-point reduction in risk doesn’t mean a binary outcome.
  • Quote: “These are conditions that are influenced by multiple genes. So it's not like you turn on this one gene, boom, we know it has X effect.” – Seagal Samuel [07:18]
• Seagal stresses that such statistics are confusing even for experts, let alone parents.

5. Subjectivity of Traits and Mental Health

• [09:55] Not all traits are universally “bad”—discussion of anxiety, depression, OCD, and how they can link to creativity and other positive attributes.
  • Quote: “Sometimes that's incredibly annoying for my life. But... I also feel like it's correlated with my creativity.” – Seagal Samuel [09:55]
  • Both hosts discuss whether they’d “eliminate” their own mental health traits with a magic wand; both are ambivalent.

6. Should You Select for the “Best” Baby? Ethical Complications and Societal Risks

• [14:44] The science:

  • Pleiotropy: Genes affect multiple traits unpredictably; selecting for one thing can unexpectedly influence others.

• [15:34] Socioeconomic implications:

  • The high cost ($2,500 per embryo) could entrench inequality. Even if costs drop, “implicit coercion” arises when everyone feels pressured to screen, risking a new “caste system.”
  • Quote: “You get this growing gap between rich and poor people because the rich people get to have the babies that are smarter, stronger, healthier...” – Seagal Samuel [15:47]
  • Social pressure grows as technology becomes accessible: parents may feel obligated to screen, even if they’re uneasy.

• [17:06] Child perspective and identity:

  • Selecting for sex may result in later emotional fallout, especially if a child’s identity doesn’t fit the parent’s selection, e.g., “you went out of your way to choose a girl, and later the child identifies differently.”
  • Quote: "You're gonna know... you went out of your way to choose a girl and it was so important to you... They have this sense of, my parents spent tens of thousands of dollars trying to achieve this consumer good and they might feel like, ooh, I extra feel like a disappointment to you now." – Seagal Samuel [17:06]

• [18:04] Eugenics and the Loss of Human Diversity

  • Concern that widespread screening removes entire “swaths of human experience," including forms of life compatible with happiness.
  • Seagal shares a story: a mother of a child with Down syndrome wrote to share her joy and the value of living with difference.
  • Quote: “Maybe we don't need to be so quick to get rid of all possible swaths of human experience that look a little bit different.” – Seagal Samuel [24:20]

7. Arguments in Favor of Genetic Screening

• [19:23] The “maximize well-being” position:
  • Philosophers like Julian Savulescu say parents have a moral obligation to ensure the best chance at the best life.
  • Screening for known severe diseases (like Tay-Sachs) is considered reasonable and routine—where’s the line between that and enhancement?
  • Quote: "Surely, you want to do the best you can for your kid... you have some philosophers... who argue that parents have a moral obligation to create children with the best chance of the best life." – Seagal Samuel [19:23]

8. Finding a Middle Ground: “Satisficing” Not Optimizing

• [20:59] Introduction of Herbert Simon’s concept “satisficing”: choosing what’s “good enough”, not always the absolute best.

  • Quote: “Opting for the good enough choice... to satisfice. And to me, satisficing in the context of like thinking about the genetic lottery for your child means, yeah, let's prevent them from having debilitating things like Tay Sachs... But...maybe we don't need to try to make them like the tall blue eyed Adonis, right?” – Seagal Samuel [21:24]

• Ultimately, Seagal advises parents not to be “bullied or shamed” by others or by companies with a profit motive.

  • Quote: “It’s kind of holding parents hostage to a moral logic that pretends to be giving them more autonomy, but actually it's robbing you of autonomy...” – Seagal Samuel [22:39]

9. Final Thoughts: Humility and Uncertainty

• Seagal and Noam close by emphasizing humility in determining what a “good life” really means—accepting surprise, uncertainty, and the limitations of human knowledge.
  • Quote: “We are deeply confused as a species about what is the good... I don't want to necessarily presume to know for my kid what's going to be the most beautiful kind of life.” – Seagal Samuel [24:52]

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• “It's exhausting and misery-inducing to try [to optimize moral life].” – Seagal Samuel [01:11]
• “They're gonna give you... a chart... embryo 1, 12% more risk of diabetes, minus 13 risk of schizophrenia...” – Seagal Samuel [05:09]
• “These are conditions that are influenced by multiple genes. So it's not like you turn on this one gene, boom, we know it has X effect.” – Seagal Samuel [07:18]
• “I feel like the same kind of thing in my brain that leads me into rabbit holes of worry also leads me into... finding cool scientific fact...” – Seagal Samuel [09:55]
• “If someone came to me and gave me a magic wand to just eliminate all of it, that seems like a harder decision.” – Noam Hassenfeld [10:38]
• “You get... this growing gap between rich and poor people because the rich people get to have the babies that are smarter, stronger, healthier, and the poorer people don’t.” – Seagal Samuel [15:47]
• “You're gonna know... your parent went out of your way to choose a girl... you might feel like a disappointment.” – Seagal Samuel [17:06]
• “Maybe we don't need to be so quick to get rid of all possible swaths of human experience that look a little bit different.” – Seagal Samuel [24:20]
• “We are deeply confused as a species about what is the good.” – Seagal Samuel [24:52]

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 01:08 – Introduction to value pluralism and Seagal’s column
• 02:45 – Reader dilemma: Should I test/select my embryo for health, intelligence, sex?
• 05:09 – How screening works: The embryo profile
• 05:52 – Difference between standard and polygenic screening
• 07:18 – Test limitations and misinterpretation
• 09:55 – Subjectivity: Mental health as both challenge and strength
• 14:44 – Should you “optimize” your child? The science and ethics
• 15:34 – Cost, class, and coercion in access to screening
• 18:04 – Eugenics and loss of “human experience”
• 19:23 – Arguments in favor: The moral obligation to maximize
• 20:59 – “Satisficing” vs. maximizing: a middle ground
• 22:10 – Seagal’s advice to parents (don’t succumb to shame or profit-driven pressure)
• 24:20 – Email from a parent of a child with Down syndrome
• 24:45 – Humility about “the best life” for one’s child

Overall Tone & Takeaways

The discussion is thoughtful, nuanced, and empathetic. Seagal Samuel and Noam Hassenfeld resist simple answers, focusing instead on the inevitable tensions that arise from having conflicting values and limited knowledge. They urge humility—reminding listeners that neither science nor philosophy can definitively say what is truly “best” for a child or for humanity as a whole.

For prospective parents wrestling with these choices, the episode’s verdict is not prescriptive, but reflective:

• Consider your values
• Understand the limits of science
• Beware coercion and commercial interests
• Accept that “good enough” may actually be best

Summary prepared for listeners seeking a rich, debate-laden, and honest exploration of one of the most profound questions in modern parenting: just because we can, should we?