Katie Hasson

I would love to build on that. That's such a good point.

I would love to build on that. That's such a good point.

And I think that, you know, this high achieving perfectionist view is not the only view that you know, children and child rearing and families that's around, but it's definitely the dominant view among people who are paying for these tests for their children, right? This is in some ways a fairly, you know, narrow view of what

And I think that, you know, this high achieving perfectionist view is not the only view that you know, children and child rearing and families that's around, but it's definitely the dominant view among people who are paying for these tests for their children, right? This is in some ways a fairly, you know, narrow view of what

health and success and thriving and happiness would look like for a child, but it's one that's having a huge influence.

health and success and thriving and happiness would look like for a child, but it's one that's having a huge influence.

Two things come to mind. One, you know, continuing this thought from before, the more that, you know, a lack of resources and the influence of ableism lead people to, you know, to screen out or to not have children with disabilities, it creates a feedback loop where then there's even fewer resources for families to to take care of children with disabilities.

Two things come to mind. One, you know, continuing this thought from before, the more that, you know, a lack of resources and the influence of ableism lead people to, you know, to screen out or to not have children with disabilities, it creates a feedback loop where then there's even fewer resources for families to to take care of children with disabilities.

Parents will feel that it's even more essential to use these tests. They have that responsibility to make sure that their child is born a certain way. I think that's one bit of it. Another implication that we talk about has to do with inequality.

Parents will feel that it's even more essential to use these tests. They have that responsibility to make sure that their child is born a certain way. I think that's one bit of it. Another implication that we talk about has to do with inequality.

The fact that these tests at the moment are only available to people with the means to afford both IVF and the additional costs of this pre-implantation genetic screening.

The fact that these tests at the moment are only available to people with the means to afford both IVF and the additional costs of this pre-implantation genetic screening.

And often the way that that concern is phrased is that, well, only the wealthy will have access to these tests and therefore they'll be able to enhance their children and will end up with a society of, you know, enhanced and not enhanced. But I don't think the wealthy people will end up with the superior children, right?

And often the way that that concern is phrased is that, well, only the wealthy will have access to these tests and therefore they'll be able to enhance their children and will end up with a society of, you know, enhanced and not enhanced. But I don't think the wealthy people will end up with the superior children, right?

I think the concern is more that we will double down on this belief in genetic determinism, that our genes determine everything about our chances and our outcomes in life. And all of the privileges that we already know that people with wealth and status in the U.S.

I think the concern is more that we will double down on this belief in genetic determinism, that our genes determine everything about our chances and our outcomes in life. And all of the privileges that we already know that people with wealth and status in the U.S.

have, the way that they affect their children's success, will be reinterpreted as coming from the genes and not from the hierarchies and not from the resources that they're able to put into it. They will put this money into having children. what the company tells them and what they believe are optimized and superior children. And they will treat their children that way.

have, the way that they affect their children's success, will be reinterpreted as coming from the genes and not from the hierarchies and not from the resources that they're able to put into it. They will put this money into having children. what the company tells them and what they believe are optimized and superior children. And they will treat their children that way.

And so will their, you know, coaches and their teachers and their tutors and their future employers. And it will, you know, justify and reinforce the inequalities that we already have, but by understanding them as being biological, which then undermines any arguments for making social changes in order to improve equality in the world.

And so will their, you know, coaches and their teachers and their tutors and their future employers. And it will, you know, justify and reinforce the inequalities that we already have, but by understanding them as being biological, which then undermines any arguments for making social changes in order to improve equality in the world.

The promise that these companies are making is that you'll be able to have a healthy baby. You can choose the best embryo, the one that is supposed to give your child the best start in life. They are screening for conditions like autism or tendency toward obesity. But for a lot of these conditions, there's not a clear understanding of genetics as a cause for that condition, right?

The promise that these companies are making is that you'll be able to have a healthy baby. You can choose the best embryo, the one that is supposed to give your child the best start in life. They are screening for conditions like autism or tendency toward obesity. But for a lot of these conditions, there's not a clear understanding of genetics as a cause for that condition, right?

The relationship between variations in the genome and the symptoms or the conditions or the outcomes is complicated and not fully understood. So the promise that they could give you a specific percentage of how likely your future child would be to develop one of these conditions is something that raises a lot of skepticism.

The relationship between variations in the genome and the symptoms or the conditions or the outcomes is complicated and not fully understood. So the promise that they could give you a specific percentage of how likely your future child would be to develop one of these conditions is something that raises a lot of skepticism.

One reason the U.S. hasn't limited this is that there's just not a regulatory mechanism in the U.S. We don't have the institutions that regulate the fertility industry and certain kinds of genetic tests.

One reason the U.S. hasn't limited this is that there's just not a regulatory mechanism in the U.S. We don't have the institutions that regulate the fertility industry and certain kinds of genetic tests.

They do. The UK has the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority, and they license fertility clinics and researchers who work with embryos. And in the case of pre-implantation genetic testing, they actually have a list of conditions that you're allowed to test for. And in the US, we don't have anything like that.

They do. The UK has the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority, and they license fertility clinics and researchers who work with embryos. And in the case of pre-implantation genetic testing, they actually have a list of conditions that you're allowed to test for. And in the US, we don't have anything like that.

Yeah, it's complicated. I think one reason is that the fertility industry has been allowed to develop as a sort of market-based system. And then I think another reason is the contentious abortion politics in the United States make many people reluctant to add additional regulations on decisions about reproduction and anything having to do with embryos.

Yeah, it's complicated. I think one reason is that the fertility industry has been allowed to develop as a sort of market-based system. And then I think another reason is the contentious abortion politics in the United States make many people reluctant to add additional regulations on decisions about reproduction and anything having to do with embryos.

I think I'd take a step back first from trying to say exactly what is the line and look a bit more at the context, particularly the context of ableism, stigma and fear around disability in our society makes it very difficult for a lot of people to answer that question. We have a very pervasive sort of cultural context belief that says that disabled lives are less valuable than others.

I think I'd take a step back first from trying to say exactly what is the line and look a bit more at the context, particularly the context of ableism, stigma and fear around disability in our society makes it very difficult for a lot of people to answer that question. We have a very pervasive sort of cultural context belief that says that disabled lives are less valuable than others.

You know, we have the Secretary of Health and Human Services saying people with autism destroy families, will never have jobs, will never pay taxes, right?

You know, we have the Secretary of Health and Human Services saying people with autism destroy families, will never have jobs, will never pay taxes, right?

Yeah. You hear something like that. And that context of ableism makes it very hard to even talk about, you know, how we make choices about who's welcomed into the world.

Yeah. You hear something like that. And that context of ableism makes it very hard to even talk about, you know, how we make choices about who's welcomed into the world.

I don't think the wealthy people will end up with the superior children, right? I think the concern is more that we will double down on this belief in genetic determinism, that our genes determine everything about our chances and our outcomes in life.

I don't think the wealthy people will end up with the superior children, right? I think the concern is more that we will double down on this belief in genetic determinism, that our genes determine everything about our chances and our outcomes in life.

I would love to build on that. That's such a good point.

And I think that, you know, this high achieving perfectionist view is not the only view that you know, children and child rearing and families that's around, but it's definitely the dominant view among people who are paying for these tests for their children, right? This is in some ways a fairly, you know, narrow view of what

health and success and thriving and happiness would look like for a child, but it's one that's having a huge influence.

Two things come to mind. One, you know, continuing this thought from before, the more that, you know, a lack of resources and the influence of ableism lead people to, you know, to screen out or to not have children with disabilities, it creates a feedback loop where then there's even fewer resources for families to to take care of children with disabilities.

Parents will feel that it's even more essential to use these tests. They have that responsibility to make sure that their child is born a certain way. I think that's one bit of it. Another implication that we talk about has to do with inequality.

The fact that these tests at the moment are only available to people with the means to afford both IVF and the additional costs of this pre-implantation genetic screening.

And often the way that that concern is phrased is that, well, only the wealthy will have access to these tests and therefore they'll be able to enhance their children and will end up with a society of, you know, enhanced and not enhanced. But I don't think the wealthy people will end up with the superior children, right?

I think the concern is more that we will double down on this belief in genetic determinism, that our genes determine everything about our chances and our outcomes in life. And all of the privileges that we already know that people with wealth and status in the U.S.

have, the way that they affect their children's success, will be reinterpreted as coming from the genes and not from the hierarchies and not from the resources that they're able to put into it. They will put this money into having children. what the company tells them and what they believe are optimized and superior children. And they will treat their children that way.

And so will their, you know, coaches and their teachers and their tutors and their future employers. And it will, you know, justify and reinforce the inequalities that we already have, but by understanding them as being biological, which then undermines any arguments for making social changes in order to improve equality in the world.

The promise that these companies are making is that you'll be able to have a healthy baby. You can choose the best embryo, the one that is supposed to give your child the best start in life. They are screening for conditions like autism or tendency toward obesity. But for a lot of these conditions, there's not a clear understanding of genetics as a cause for that condition, right?

The relationship between variations in the genome and the symptoms or the conditions or the outcomes is complicated and not fully understood. So the promise that they could give you a specific percentage of how likely your future child would be to develop one of these conditions is something that raises a lot of skepticism.

One reason the U.S. hasn't limited this is that there's just not a regulatory mechanism in the U.S. We don't have the institutions that regulate the fertility industry and certain kinds of genetic tests.

They do. The UK has the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority, and they license fertility clinics and researchers who work with embryos. And in the case of pre-implantation genetic testing, they actually have a list of conditions that you're allowed to test for. And in the US, we don't have anything like that.

Yeah, it's complicated. I think one reason is that the fertility industry has been allowed to develop as a sort of market-based system. And then I think another reason is the contentious abortion politics in the United States make many people reluctant to add additional regulations on decisions about reproduction and anything having to do with embryos.

I think I'd take a step back first from trying to say exactly what is the line and look a bit more at the context, particularly the context of ableism, stigma and fear around disability in our society makes it very difficult for a lot of people to answer that question. We have a very pervasive sort of cultural context belief that says that disabled lives are less valuable than others.

You know, we have the Secretary of Health and Human Services saying people with autism destroy families, will never have jobs, will never pay taxes, right?

Yeah. You hear something like that. And that context of ableism makes it very hard to even talk about, you know, how we make choices about who's welcomed into the world.

I don't think the wealthy people will end up with the superior children, right? I think the concern is more that we will double down on this belief in genetic determinism, that our genes determine everything about our chances and our outcomes in life.