Wealthy UK couples are paying $50,000 to predict and select embryos for intelligence, height, and disease risk. Regulators consider this illegal at home but are unable to stop couples from using overseas services.
This marks a significant shift in reproductive technology, moving from preventing disease to enhancing traits. The practice exploits a loophole between UK data protection laws and regulations governing embryo testing.
The stakes affect ethics, law, and humanity’s reproductive future.
When Rules Don’t Follow Money
The UK has established strict embryo testing rules over the past 30 years. Yet couples now sidestep these safeguards by accessing their own genetic data through a single legal right.
Once they get the raw embryo genetic information, nothing stops them from sending it to US companies like Herasight for analysis that UK clinics cannot perform.
This gap between domestic law and international data flows creates an escape route. Regulators can restrict UK clinics, but cannot prevent wealthy patients from exporting data overseas.
Inside the UK’s Embryo Testing Ban
Since 1990, UK clinics have been able to test embryos for serious genetic disorders—Huntington’s disease, cystic fibrosis, and sickle cell disease. The law reflects a principle: testing should prevent suffering, not improve traits.
The HFEA, the independent regulator, has enforced this for 30 years. Polygenic risk scores—predictions of intelligence or height from thousands of genetic variants—are explicitly banned.
They lack proven validity, involve multiple genes with tiny effects, and risk eugenic discrimination. The framework prevents a genetic hierarchy in which only the wealthy have access to superior embryos.
The Data Protection Backdoor
UK and European data protection law gives people absolute rights to access their personal data, including genetic information. When couples do IVF at UK clinics, their embryo genetic data becomes “personal data” belonging to them.
Under GDPR, they can legally demand this raw data from clinics. Once they have it, UK law cannot restrict what they do with it—they can share it anywhere.
Herasight, the US company, confirmed it receives embryo data from UK clients via this pathway.
Enter Herasight: The $50,000 Prediction Engine
Herasight, a US biotech company, enables couples to submit their embryos’ genetic data and receive predictions for IQ, height, and disease risk across various conditions.
The company charges $50,000 per couple for unlimited embryo assessment. It claims selecting from five embryos using its algorithm yields an average 6-point IQ gain—the largest documented embryo selection effect if true.
Herasight markets to international clients, including UK families, exploiting the data protection loophole. Couples pay premium fees for reproductive choices forbidden at home.
The Patient Behind the Story
A 29-year-old London woman at Avenues Fertility Clinic banked 16 embryos to use Herasight’s service and select those with the highest predicted IQ and lowest disease risk.
She is one of at least two patients at this clinic pursuing this path. Dr. Cristina Hickman, the clinic’s founder, discovered this and warned the HFEA.
The woman’s case shows the real impact of the regulatory gap: a wealthy, informed patient paying premium fees for reproductive choices that UK law forbids domestically. Every step of her strategy remains within the bounds of the law.
The Clinic That Blew the Whistle
Dr. Cristina Hickman, founder of Avenues Fertility Clinic in London and senior embryologist, raised concerns in a letter to the HFEA.
She warned that the practice “opens a whole can of worms” by creating a two-tier fertility system: wealthy families can afford Herasight’s $50,000 fee to optimize non-medical embryo selection, while others cannot.
Hickman did not condemn her patients for breaking laws—they did not. Instead, she highlighted the ethical and social risks of a regulatory loophole. Her disclosure confirmed two active cases and suggests the practice may spread.
What the Regulators Can and Cannot Do
Peter Thompson, HFEA Chief Executive, stated plainly: “Nothing stops a UK couple seeking such testing overseas, but a UK clinic should not decide which embryo to use based on that information.”
This reveals regulatory power limits. The HFEA can prohibit UK clinics from offering polygenic screening and discipline clinics using overseas polygenic data for selection.
But it cannot prevent couples from getting their own data or using overseas services. The regulator lacks jurisdiction over Herasight or other US companies. Domestic law is strict; enforcement is narrow.
The Scientific Skepticism
The European Society of Human Genetics condemned polygenic embryo screening as “unproven and unethical.”
The criticism focuses on three problems: (1) polygenic scores work best for specific populations and lose accuracy across different ancestries; (2) environment heavily influences intelligence and height, weakening predictions; (3) ranking embryos using these scores means enhancement, not disease prevention.
Herasight’s 6-point IQ gain claim is extraordinary by scientific standards, yet the company never published peer-reviewed proof. Couples pay $50,000 based on company claims, not research. Regulators watch whether this spreads.
The Hidden Market: Billions in Play
The UK performs roughly 77,500 IVF cycles yearly. If just 5% of couples adopted Herasight’s service, the market would generate $193 million annually in the UK alone—and billions globally.
Industry analysts project that the broader reproductive medicine market will exceed $85 billion by 2034, with genetic screening as a major driver of growth. This financial scale explains why Herasight attracts venture capital and aggressively markets internationally: the addressable market is enormous.
What started as a regulatory loophole becomes a business model. Higher adoption increases pressure on regulators to clarify rules.
The Regulatory Collision
In November 2025, the HFEA held authority meetings explicitly addressing the polygenic screening loophole. The regulator acknowledged the problem: couples use data protection rights to circumvent embryo testing restrictions.
The HFEA has not yet issued formal guidance or prohibitions, but it has signaled heightened scrutiny of clinics that knowingly facilitate overseas polygenic screening. This marks escalating regulatory tension.
Clinics face a dilemma: they must respect patients’ data rights, yet the HFEA expects them to police the downstream use of data. Some clinics may refuse to provide genetic data to patients suspected of pursuing polygenic screening, which could trigger data protection complaints.
The Clinic Dilemma
UK fertility clinics face unprecedented ethical and legal pressure. Data protection law requires them to provide patients’ embryo genetic data upon request.
Yet if a clinic provides data knowing the patient plans polygenic screening, the clinic risks HFEA censure for facilitating an unlawful practice. If they refuse to provide data, they are in violation of the GDPR.
Some clinics now document conversations about intended data use, creating protection if a patient later pursues Herasight. Others stress the HFEA’s position on polygenic screening, hoping to dissuade patients through information. The result: friction between data rights and regulatory intent.
International Regulatory Response
Other countries watch the UK closely. Australia, Canada, and certain European nations have similar restrictions on polygenic embryo screening. Yet none explicitly addressed the data protection loophole.
Some regulators now require clinics to document the intended use of genetic data and refuse provision if polygenic screening is specified. The US has minimal restrictions on embryo testing, and companies like Herasight operate with near-total freedom.
This regulatory divergence creates global arbitrage: services forbidden in one country are marketed to citizens of that country from legal jurisdictions outside of it. Access becomes unequal based on wealth and geography.
The Wealth Inequality Angle
The $50,000 fee is not minor—it is a barrier. The UK median household income is approximately $41,000 per year. Herasight’s service costs more than many British families earn in a year.
This creates stark genetic inequality: only the wealthy can afford embryo selection for non-medical traits. The practice amplifies existing reproductive disparities. Wealthier families have access to genetic optimization tools denied to others, potentially widening socioeconomic inequality across generations.
Bioethicists flag this concern: if polygenic screening becomes normal among the affluent, it could entrench genetic stratification. Dr. Hickman’s warning about a “genetic hierarchy where superior embryos are available only to those who can afford them” captures this anxiety.
The Regulatory Reckoning Ahead
UK policymakers face three paths forward. First, they could amend the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act to explicitly prohibit the use of polygenic screening data in embryo selection, even if obtained overseas.
This would require clinics to refuse genetic data requests if polygenic screening is suspected. Second, they could accept the practice as inevitable and focus on transparency and informed consent, ensuring couples understand scientific uncertainties.
Third, they could maintain the status quo and accept regulatory arbitrage in a globalized biotech market. Each path carries political, ethical, and practical trade-offs. The loophole is unlikely to close organically.
Emerging Investigations and Policy Moves
The HFEA is expected to plan formal guidance on polygenic screening and data protection, likely released in early 2026. Members of Parliament raised questions about whether current regulatory frameworks fit current needs.
The Health and Social Care Committee may conduct an inquiry into assisted reproduction and genetic selection, potentially recommending statutory amendments.
The Department of Health and Social Care has indicated interest in updating its embryo testing guidance to reflect emerging technologies. These moves suggest the regulatory vacuum will not last. However, new legislation takes time to draft, debate, and enact—leaving a window when the loophole remains open.
The Broader Biotech Ecosystem
The Herasight loophole reflects a wider trend: genetic technologies expanding faster than regulatory frameworks. Polygenic scoring is explored in other contexts, including pharmacogenomics, athletic talent prediction, and disease risk assessment.
Companies in adjacent sectors closely watch the UK case because regulatory strategies developed here may be applicable elsewhere. The fertility industry is not isolated: it sits within a broader ecosystem of genetic testing, direct-to-consumer genomics, and AI-driven health prediction.
A regulatory precedent in UK IVF could influence how other genetic selection practices are governed globally, making this seemingly niche issue consequential for biotech policy.
Social Media and Misinformation
Online fertility communities and parenting forums discuss polygenic embryo screening, with some framing it as responsible parenting while others condemn it as eugenics.
Herasight’s marketing emphasizes disease risk reduction, but social media posts often focus on IQ and height optimization—controversial claims. Misinformation spreads: some posts falsely claim polygenic screening is legal in the UK or endorsed by the HFEA.
Fertility counselors report patients arriving with unrealistic expectations about what the technology delivers. Lack of public education and infertility’s emotional nature create conditions where hype outpaces science. Regulators recognize the need for clearer public communication.
IQ Testing and Eugenics
The current debate echoes a darker history. In the early 20th century, IQ testing was promoted as a scientific basis for selective breeding and immigration restriction, contributing to eugenic movements.
Modern polygenic screening utilizes contemporary genetics, not flawed eugenics science; yet, the ethical shadow remains. The concern is not that polygenic scores are scientifically equivalent to 1920s IQ tests, but that using them for embryo selection revives the idea that some genetic profiles are superior.
Bioethicists warn that normalizing genetic selection for intelligence could gradually shift social attitudes, making genetic discrimination seem rational. Once a technology becomes commercially available, ethical objections often fade.
The Bottom Line
The Herasight loophole is not a bug—it is a feature of a world where data flows internationally, but laws stay national. UK couples can legally get their embryo genetic data and legally use it for reproductive decisions, but UK clinics cannot legally facilitate polygenic screening domestically.
This asymmetry creates a grey zone where the wealthy circumvent safeguards. Current stakes are modest: perhaps hundreds of UK couples use Herasight. But if adoption reaches 5% of IVF cycles, financial and social implications become enormous.
The key question is not whether policymakers can close the loophole—they can—but whether they do so before the practice normalizes. The next 12–18 months will likely determine whether genetic selection for enhancement becomes permanent in UK reproductive medicine or whether regulators reassert control.