Personal-Genetics Firm Denies Pursuit of 'Designer Babies'

23andMe says it has no plans to pursue concepts discussed in its patent for a method to predict a baby's traits based on its parents' DNA

By Ewen Callaway & Nature News Blog

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Originally posted on the Nature news blog

The consumer genetics firm 23andMe was last week awarded a US patent for a method to predict a baby’s traits based on its parents’ DNA, the company announced.

23andMe, which is based in Mountain View, California, says that the patent relates to its Family Traits Inheritance Calculator, which “offers an engaging way for you and your partner to see what kind of traits your child might inherit from you” and has been available to customers since 2009. Yet the patent (PDF here), which was filed more than 5 years ago, includes language that mentions other applications of the method, including for the screening of sperm and ova to be used for in vitro fertilization. The patent mentions the potential to screen would-be babies for traits such as eye color, disease risk, height and gender.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

The company says that it included such language when it filed the patent because it saw the potential for the tool to be used in fertility clinics. “But much has evolved in that time, including 23andMe’s strategic focus. The company never pursued the concepts discussed in the patent beyond our Family Traits Inheritance Calculator, nor do we have any plans to do so,” it says.

23andMe’s first patent, relating to a genetic variant associated with Parkinson’s disease, angered some customers, who objected to the company’s potentially making a profit from their genetic information (see ‘Personal-genetic company patent raises hackles’).

This article is reproduced with permission from the Nature news blog. The article was first published on October 2, 2013.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American