Abstract
We would like to thank the authors for their letter addressing our recent policy paper on PGT-P, as this provides us with an additional opportunity to clarify our position.
Tellier et al. criticise the selection of papers we have cited, considering them not sufficiently representative of the wealth of literature on this subject, so that, according to them, we have not correctly represented the 'scientific consensus' and 'potential utility' of the technology.
It is important to emphasise that our paper does not aim to address the research underlying polygenic risk scores (PRSs) in general, nor the full range of potential screening and clinical applications, but only those PRSs applied to embryo selection and ranking (so-called PGT-P). We would like to reassure Tellier et al. that we have considered a much larger body of literature than just the papers we have referred to. As one might expect, we selected the papers that are the most relevant and important for the very specific scope of our policy paper.