So this is why if you read the CNV studies and you look at the hits they identify, and how many subjects are covered by the identified hits, you find that like, maybe 2% of the cohort will have one of those specific identified hits and lose 2 IQ points or gain 2 kg of fat etc. So you can see how that would work out in embryo selection: you’d be able to avoid that loss, which is meaningful! …in a tiny fraction of all embryos. On average, you’d just sequence them all, find no known pathogenic variant, and shrug, and use the SNP PGS like usual, having gained nothing.
Also, of course, WGS is substantially more expensive than SNP genotyping and more difficult to do on embryos.
That is relevant in pre-implantation diagnosis for parents and gene therapy at the population level. But for Qwisatz Haderach breeding purposes those costs are immaterial. There the main bottleneck is the iteration of selection, or making synthetic genomes. Going for the most typical genome with the least amount of originality is not a technical challenge in itself, right? We would not be interested in the effect of the ugliness, only in getting it out.
I agree that woo is bad. And microbiome is of course irrelevant wrt boosting IQ. But a good part of the post was about improving health, and microbes do have serious downsides on that front. If you don’t have the good ones you are at a much greater risk of being colonized by the bad ones. And disease still has a non-zero negative effect on people’s brain development and cognition.
Removing bad behaviour from microbiome would be quite a bit more effective and easier than fixing genes, for fighting disease. And many of the diseases with a significant genomic risk scores mentioned in the post probably have an unknown necessary pathogenic cause.
Here’s a paper (Cochran&Ewald) with simple powerful arguments, I always try to push it to any doctors I meet.