Public perceptions of polygenic testing and embryo selection for non-medical traits

Some advances in reproductive technologies raise substantial ethical and psychological challenges, for example, the use of preimplantation genetic testing to select embryos based on non-medical traits. While studies have explored public willingness to use preimplantation genetic testing for medical or non-medical attributes, stated willingness may not reflect implantation decisions when such information is available. This large cross-national study examined public views on polygenic embryo testing. In a US sample (N = 1,467), participants were more willing to test for medical conditions (for example, heart disease) than non-medical traits (for example, antisocial behaviour or low intelligence), although over half supported testing for non-medical traits. In a forced-choice implantation task, participants used medical and non-medical information to a similar extent when making decisions. Similar patterns were observed in Chinese participants (N = 623). These findings suggest variability in choices across specific traits and conditions, rather than a uniform distinction between medical conditions and non-medical traits. The Stage 1 protocol for this Registered Report was accepted in principle on 7 October 2025. The protocol, as accepted by the journal, can be found at https://osf.io/vb9c2 .

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Nature Human Behaviour
Published
2026-08-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-026-02562-w
Primary Topic
Reproductive Health and Technologies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Public perceptions of polygenic testing and embryo selection for non-medical traits

Brian David Earp, Peng Liu, Joanna Demaree-Cotton, Julian Savulescu et al.
Nature Human Behaviour
Reproductive Health and Technologies
article

Public perceptions of polygenic testing and embryo selection for non-medical traits

Brian David Earp, Peng Liu, Joanna Demaree-Cotton, Julian Savulescu, Dominic Wilkinson, Owen Schaefer, Jim AC Everett, Edmond Awad, Ilina Singh, Clara Colombatto
article en

Abstract

Some advances in reproductive technologies raise substantial ethical and psychological challenges, for example, the use of preimplantation genetic testing to select embryos based on non-medical traits. While studies have explored public willingness to use preimplantation genetic testing for medical or non-medical attributes, stated willingness may not reflect implantation decisions when such information is available. This large cross-national study examined public views on polygenic embryo testing. In a US sample (N = 1,467), participants were more willing to test for medical conditions (for example, heart disease) than non-medical traits (for example, antisocial behaviour or low intelligence), although over half supported testing for non-medical traits. In a forced-choice implantation task, participants used medical and non-medical information to a similar extent when making decisions. Similar patterns were observed in Chinese participants (N = 623). These findings suggest variability in choices across specific traits and conditions, rather than a uniform distinction between medical conditions and non-medical traits. The Stage 1 protocol for this Registered Report was accepted in principle on 7 October 2025. The protocol, as accepted by the journal, can be found at https://osf.io/vb9c2 .

Nature Human Behaviour
University of Waterloo (CA), National University of Singapore (SG), University of Kent (GB), University of Exeter (GB), John Radcliffe Hospital (GB), University of Oxford (GB), Murdoch Children's Research Institute (AU), Zhejiang University (CN)
Wellcome Trust, Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin Research Institute, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, National Institute for Health and Care Research, Leverhulme Trust, Department of Health and Social Care, National University of Singapore, Ministry of Education - Singapore, Zhejiang University
Gender equality
Openalex Percentile: Top 71%
Reproductive Health and Technologies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.