Every professional body that has reviewed embryo scoring, and what each one said
Not one supports clinical use. Four say it should not be offered. And American fertility specialists themselves mostly do not approve of it.
This is unusual. On most contested questions the societies split. On this one they do not.
| Body | Date | Position |
|---|---|---|
| ASRM (US fertility) | Released 8 December 2025 | Should not be offered clinically. Research only, under ethics board supervision. |
| ACMG (US medical genetics) | 23 February 2024 | Not recommended for clinical use. |
| ESHG (European human genetics) | 2022 | An unproven, unethical practice. |
| ESHRE (European fertility) | 2 February 2022 | Adopts the ESHG position. |
| ISPG (psychiatric genetics) | May 2021 | Accuracy not sufficient for clinical use. Urges caution. |
| ACOG (US obstetrics) | No position located | See below. |
ASRM, in the plainest sentence any body has produced: PGT-P remains a nascent and unproven technology that is not recommended for clinical use and should not be offered as a clinical service at this time.
The same document adds something about consent that is worth carrying into any clinic: The ability of individuals to choose whether to use PGT-P should be respected; however, autonomy alone is not a sufficient justification for the widespread clinical implementation of a technology that remains scientifically and ethically unsettled.
ESHG put its position in its title: The use of polygenic risk scores in pre-implantation genetic testing: an unproven, unethical practice. In the text: At present, carrying out a PRS test for embryo selection would be premature at best.
ESHRE issued a statement on 2 February 2022 whose title is the whole position: ESHRE supports the position of ESHG on embryo selection based on polygenic risk scores.
ISPG, on screening embryos for mental illness: The accuracy with which a polygenic score can predict psychiatric illnesses, such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and major depression, is currently not sufficient for clinical use.
ACMG. The statement itself is paywalled, so only the College's own announcement is quoted here. In it, the ACMG president says: At this time, PGT-P is not recommended for clinical use, as ongoing research and societal guidelines are needed.
ACOG. Be precise about this one, because precision is the point. No ACOG position on polygenic embryo screening was located for this guide. ACOG's dedicated document on testing embryos, Committee Opinion 799 from March 2020, does not mention polygenic scores at all. That document does say something you should have anyway: Patients and health care providers should be aware that a 'normal' or negative preimplantation genetic test result is not a guarantee of a newborn without genetic abnormalities.
An ACOG ethics statement from February 2026 exists but could not be opened for this guide, so no claim is made about what it contains.
This is not simply anti-selection ideology. A 2022 paper concluding that these scores are not ready for prime time
was co-authored by the philosopher best known for arguing that parents have a moral reason to select the child expected to have the best life. The person most identified with the case for choosing says this particular technology is not ready.
What the specialists who would have to offer it think. In a survey of 152 US fertility specialists, general approval of polygenic embryo screening was 12%, disapproval 46%, and 58% thought the risks outweighed the benefits. Approval for using it to select behavioural or physical traits was 7% and 6%.
The follow-up survey asked the sharpest question. When the polygenic score points to one embryo and the chromosome test points to another, only 8% would follow the polygenic score. Ninety-two percent go with the chromosomes.
"ASRM says this should not be offered as a clinical service. What is your reason for offering it?"
"If the polygenic score and the chromosome result disagree, which one do you follow?"