ReviewGenetics in medicine open2026
Ethical and social implications of implementing polygenic embryo screening into clinical care: A scoping review.
Review in Genetics in medicine open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Polygenic embryo screening (PES), or preimplantation genetic testing for polygenic conditions/traits, is an emerging application of polygenic risk scores within in vitro fertilization. Marketed commercially to prospective parents with limited professional guidelines, PES raises ethical and social concerns. To date, no scoping review has synthesized the ethical landscape of PES. Our study addresses this gap by mapping ethical and sociocultural issues across academic literature. Methods: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, in September 2024, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, and PhilPapers, yielding a total of 399 articles. After abstract screening and full-text review, the final dataset included 54 articles. Using the 4 principles of biomedical ethics - beneficence, autonomy, non-maleficence, and justice-as an a priori codebook alongside inductive thematic coding, we analyzed how PES is ethically evaluated. Results: Under beneficence, concerns emerged over clinical validity/utility and uncertain net benefit. Autonomy-related discussions emphasized informed consent and counseling challenges, decision-making shaped by incomplete or biased information, appeals to procreative beneficence, tensions surrounding reproductive autonomy, and respect for the autonomy of future offspring. Non-maleficence concerns included pleiotropy, increased medical risks from in vitro fertilization pursued solely for PES, psychological harms, and clinician-driven embryo selection. Justice subthemes included unequal access to PES, fears of eugenics, stigmatization/discrimination, and potential demographic impacts. Sociocultural perceptions addressed distinctions between conditions and traits, definitions of "healthy," and disability and feminist critiques. Conclusion: Although proponents frame PES as advancing reproductive choice and potential health benefits, critics underscore unresolved scientific limitations and significant ethical and sociocultural concerns. The commercial expansion of PES warrants continued study of its validity/utility and standardized counseling.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.