Thanks for the response.
I thought the following article does a good job of outlining some of the limitations of PRS for embryo selection:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9527452/
Like any new (medical) technology, I think that it's important to consider the ethical implications. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it or allow it, but just that we should be thoughtful about it.
As for clinic success rates, I didn't mean to imply that "they don't mean anything". It's just that prospective patients should be aware that they can't always be taken at face value. Clinic populations may differ significantly and the data can be manipulated to some extent. The good news though is that as long as a clinic does a significant volume of IVF cycles per year and reports decent success rates, it's probably fine.
I agree that increasing insurance coverage for infertility services would help improve access and reduce disparities.
RE IVG, I see your point. I guess germline/embryo gene-editing (if it were proven safe, efficient, and efficacious) would have greater utility than PGT-P (preimplantation genetic testing for polygenic risk).
Great post. Thank you. Fertility doctor here and a supporter of ART (assisted reproductive technologies) in general. A few thoughts (although you touched on a few of these below, worth emphasizing in my opinion):
We don’t actually know that JK He accomplished what he said he did. He may have tried. But the results have not been independently verified. That would require genotyping the parents and children. So, premature to say that germline editing appears safe in humans.