How embryo screening start-ups like Orchid are changing how babies are made

Orchid claims to sequence all 3 billion base pairs of a human genome using just five cells from an early-stage embryo, then applies proprietary algorithms to offer polygenic risk scores — probability estimates of developing illnesses ranging from Alzheimer’s to obesity. While traditional IVF clinics test for a handful of known mutations, Siddiqui’s start-up aims to give parents a comprehensive health profile of each embryo, at $2,500 per screening. Her clients are mostly wealthy tech insiders comfortable making life decisions based on data — and willing to pay for what they see as genetic peace of mind.

Polygenic scoring and ethical alarms

The broader scientific and medical communities remain sceptical. Leading geneticists question whether such risk predictions are accurate or reliable enough to justify discarding embryos. Critics also warn that these screenings risk promoting a new form of eugenics, especially if used to select for traits like intelligence — something Orchid denies offering but is alleged to have done for Elon Musk and Shivon Zilis, parents of one known “Orchid baby.” Siddiqui says the goal is to reduce suffering and give families more choice, not to engineer perfection.

A booming, unregulated industry

What makes companies like Orchid controversial is how little oversight they face. There are virtually no federal regulations in the U.S. governing how these companies develop and market their embryo-screening tools. Yet interest — and investment — is surging. Orchid is now partnered with 100 IVF clinics nationwide, and competitors like Nucleus and Heliospect Genomics are entering the space, many backed by tech billionaires such as Peter Thiel and Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong. They see embryo screening not as sci-fi but as the next logical step in the evolution of personalized medicine and pronatalism.

Scientific pushback and social concerns

Even some scientists pushing for broader use of genomic tools warn against overpromising. Amplifying DNA from a few embryonic cells is prone to errors, and polygenic scores don’t yet fully account for the environment or gene interactions. Critics worry couples may discard viable embryos based on misunderstood risks or select against traits associated with both illness and creativity. The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics calls the science “unproven” and urges caution in clinical settings.

A look ahead at reproductive decision-making

Despite the criticism, the demand for these technologies is growing. Couples like Julie Kang and Roshan George, who screened 12 embryos and selected one without a shared gene for hearing loss, say the process gave them clarity and comfort. For others, it raises difficult questions about what kind of information is too much — and who gets to access it. As Siddiqui and Orchid push forward, their work may set the tone for a future where reproduction is as much about genetic spreadsheets as it is about biology.