Yeah, this is very elegant

We used a similar design in this paper:
www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...

Found that in cis-MR with multiple colocalising instruments (i.e. multiple indepdent signals colocalise between eQTL and pQTL traits) sign concordance was around 95%:

When we tried to quantify this for steady state expression in prior work we see a significant (but small) fraction of disease heritability captured by measurable steady state QTL models which suggests they are a useful starting point (and what else do we have anyway?)

www.nature.com/articles/s41...

Yeah this is an important point. Some (still unknown) fraction of context specific QTLs will still show up at steady state (and even in the "wrong" tissue). The context specificity hypothesis is plausible but has so far mostly been driven by the absence of evidence without good quantification.

Interestingly there was no relationship between false signs and local recombination rate or gene constraint, at least in a simple linear model, so something more complicated is going on.

IMO this paper does a really good job laying out the trade-offs between power (in this case predictive accuracy) and specificity with different levels of phenotyping.

Yes, these are good statements but they mostly leave the broader implications for other people to sort out. A point that I think has been under-appreciated is that these companies have a direct commercial incentive to create stigma around not using the technology, and they are aggressively doing so.

Yes, these are good statements but they mostly leave the broader implications for other people to sort out. A point that I think has been under-appreciated is that these companies have a direct commercial incentive to create stigma around not using the technology, and they are aggressively doing so.

To be fair, there have been a couple of articles published from professional organisations pushing back against PGT-P and embryo selection:
ACMG pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38393332/
ASRM pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41309413/

But I'd agree this is nowhere near enough.

Pseudonym

Like, “Defending eugenics” is an absolutely bonkers title for a paper and the author list is a mix of “people you’d totally expect to write this article” and “people who should know better”. Either way an actual scholar of eugenics took them to school philarchive.org/archive/WILE...

Something that this response captured really well is that Anomaly actually comes off as very uninterested in the ethics of eugenics. It's pretty clear he just thinks it's cool and edgy and then hand-waves some vague arguments to justify it.

It's not clear, I think they do have a bespoke long-reads component. I agree that other companies and clinics need to develop a stance on whether Herasight is an acceptable partner.

A handful of other researchers, spanning the ideological gamut from Eric Turkheimer to James Lee, have begun to raise alarm. They are right to do so and the scientific community and the public needs to take notice. /x

Equally strange is the fact that hardly anyone in the genetics community seems to notice or care. Social science genetics organizations that have spent years advocating against genetic essentialism and the abuse of their data have gone silent.

TLDR: An advocate for bog-standard coercive eugenics has now founded a genetic screening company, calls for stigmatization of "unfit" parents in the company ethics white-paper, and proudly tells the world that the company as doing eugenics -- "yes, and it's great!"