Advancements in genetic testing have made it possible to screen embryos for a variety of genetic conditions. Discuss the ethical implications of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) for non-medical traits such as intelligence or physical appearance. Should there be regulations limiting the use of PGD?

Where answers to this question lose points

Our scorer marks every answer on three parts. For each of the 325 applicants who finished this question on Confetto, we took their first scored answer and counted the part that scored lowest.

• Structure: a clear order and a clear point125 of 325
• Content: covering what the question needs112 of 325
• Communication: tone, clarity and professionalism38 of 325

Confetto data as of November 8, 2026. A part is shown only when 20 or more applicants share it. Answers where two parts tied are not counted toward either. We never show anyone's answers or details.

What this question tests

• Health policy
• Medical ethics

How to structure your answer

1. What it's about (15 seconds). The answer frames the question as how far reproductive choice should extend when embryo testing moves from preventing disease to selecting preferred traits. It identifies prospective parents, future children, and people with socially undervalued characteristics as those affected.
2. Both sides (40 seconds). The answer fairly presents reproductive autonomy, comparing embryo selection with parents’ existing efforts to improve their children’s opportunities and recognizing that restrictions impose contested values. Against this, it highlights treating children as products, uncertain intelligence predictions, deeper inequality, and reinforced racialized beauty standards.
3. Your position (20 seconds). The answer supports enforceable limits on non-medical embryo selection while preserving access for serious genetic conditions, because commercial choices can harm others beyond the family. It specifies independent oversight, accurate advertising requirements, and restrictions on selection for intelligence or cosmetic preferences.
4. Its downside (15 seconds). The answer recognizes that restrictions reduce parental freedom and that medical and non-medical traits can overlap, using short stature as an example. It proposes transparent criteria, genetic counseling, and an appeals process involving clinicians, ethicists, and disability advocates to soften those costs.
5. What would change it (10 seconds). The answer would reconsider a categorical restriction if strong evidence showed that a particular use delivered substantial benefits without reinforcing discrimination or inequality. It makes clear that improved predictive accuracy alone would not resolve concerns about how society values children.
6. Common pitfalls. Opening with a flat yes or no, or discussing only reproductive autonomy or only social harms, would weaken the balanced reasoning this question needs. Inventing statistics or promising that embryo selection guarantees intelligence would also undermine the answer’s credibility.

Example answer from Confetto

Example answer from Confetto. Not a real applicant's answer.

I see this question as asking how far reproductive choice should extend when embryo testing shifts from preventing disease to selecting traits, affecting prospective parents, future children, and people whose characteristics society already undervalues.

The strongest argument for allowing this is reproductive autonomy. Parents already make choices about education and environment to improve their children’s opportunities, so I understand why a couple undergoing IVF might also want genetic information. Restrictions can impose contested values on families. On the other hand, selecting for intelligence or appearance risks treating children as products with preferred specifications. Intelligence is influenced by many genes and environmental factors, so an embryo ranking cannot reliably promise a smarter child. Expensive selection services could also deepen inequality and reinforce racialized beauty standards.

I support enforceable limits on embryo selection for non-medical traits, while preserving access for serious genetic conditions. My main reason is that commercial choice here can create harms beyond one family, particularly when clinics market uncertain predictions as meaningful advantages. I favor independent oversight, accurate advertising requirements, and a restriction on offering selection for intelligence or cosmetic preferences.

I recognize that this limits parental freedom and that the boundary between medical and non-medical traits is not always clear. Short stature, for example, can be a normal variation or part of a serious condition. I would soften that problem through transparent criteria, genetic counseling, and an appeals process involving clinicians, ethicists, and disability advocates, rather than leaving decisions solely to clinics or regulators.

I would reconsider a categorical restriction if strong evidence showed a particular use produced substantial benefits without reinforcing discrimination or inequality. Better predictive accuracy alone would not change my mind, because the concern is also how we value children.

Use it for its structure. Interviewers can tell a memorized script, so tell your own story.

Keep going

• A new policy allows for Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) for patients whose sole underlying condition is a severe, treatment-resistant mental illness. What are the potential ethical benefits and risks of this expansion?
• Discuss the ethical considerations of prescribing placebos in clinical practice. Under what circumstances, if any, is it acceptable for a physician to prescribe a placebo without the patient's knowledge?
• Is it ethical for doctors to strike? If so, under what conditions?
• Medical school interview questions by type
• The full interview question bank