Imagine a future where the diseases that plague humanity—heart disease, Alzheimer’s, even certain cancers—could be eradicated not just for you, but for your children, and their children, through a tiny, precise edit to their very blueprint before they are even born. It’s a concept that feels straight out of science fiction, yet the world of gene-editing is pushing it from the realm of possibility into serious consideration, even if it remains deeply controversial.
The latest headline stirring the pot comes from the West Coast, where a biotech entrepreneur, Lucas Harrington, has just announced he’s secured a staggering $30 million to launch a new public-benefit company called Preventive. Their mission? To study how to safely create genetically edited babies. This isn’t just another startup; it marks the largest known investment into a technology often deemed taboo, and it re-ignites a global conversation about where we draw the line in shaping human life.
The Vision: Re-writing the Future of Human Health
At its core, Preventive aims to research what’s known as “heritable genome editing.” Think of it as a microscopic spell-check on the earliest stages of human development. The idea is to modify the DNA of embryos, either to correct harmful mutations that lead to inherited diseases or, more controversially, to install beneficial genes. The ultimate goal, Harrington states, is disease prevention, creating generations free from genetic predispositions to illness.
Harrington, a cofounder of Mammoth Biosciences, a gene-editing company focused on adult treatments, isn’t rushing in blindly. He emphasizes that Preventive will dedicate itself to “rigorously researching whether heritable genome editing can be done safely and responsibly.” This measured approach is crucial, especially given the shadows cast by previous attempts; the first scientist to perform such a procedure in China was imprisoned, and the technique remains illegal in many countries, including the US.
Yet, the lure is undeniable. Harrington estimates that editing an embryo could cost as little as $5,000. If proven safe and effective, he believes it “could become one of the most important health technologies of our time.” Picture a world where debilitating conditions like Huntington’s or cystic fibrosis are simply stories from the past, never passed down. It’s a powerful vision, one that resonates deeply with our innate desire to protect our offspring from suffering.
Beyond Disease: The Slippery Slope of Enhancement?
While Preventive frames its mission around preventing disease, the broader implications of heritable genome editing quickly venture into more complex territory. If we can correct harmful genes, why not install beneficial ones? Small genetic tweaks, in theory, could create individuals immune to heart disease or Alzheimer’s, passing those traits on to their descendants. And here’s where the conversation invariably shifts from ‘therapy’ to ‘enhancement.’
Preventive isn’t alone in this nascent field. It’s the third US startup this year to publicly declare an interest in gene-edited babies. Bootstrap Bio, based in California, is reportedly exploring enhancing intelligence – a concept that sends shivers down the spines of many. Manhattan Genomics is another, also in formation. These ventures, currently lacking significant staff or facilities, are often dismissed by mainstream scientists as lacking credibility. But their very existence signals a growing, if controversial, entrepreneurial interest in shaping the human condition.
Navigating the Ethical Minefield and Scientific Skepticism
The path forward for companies like Preventive is anything but clear. Creating genetically edited humans is not only illegal in many places but also deeply controversial from an ethical standpoint. Critics raise profound questions about unforeseen long-term effects, the potential for genetic discrimination, and the very definition of what it means to be human.
One of the most vocal critics is Fyodor Urnov, a gene-editing expert at the University of California, Berkeley, where Harrington himself studied. Urnov has consistently called heritable genome editing “dangerous, misguided, and a distraction” from the established benefits of gene editing to treat adults and children with existing conditions. His reaction to Preventive’s launch? He told a reporter it made him want to “howl with pain.” This isn’t just academic disagreement; it’s a deep-seated conviction that these ventures risk causing “formidable harm.”
Mainstream scientific consensus, for now, largely aligns with Urnov’s caution. Preventive has struggled to secure widespread endorsements from leading figures in genome editing. The company’s blog post only listed one advisor, Paula Amato, a fertility doctor who sees the technology as a way to potentially increase IVF success by correcting abnormal embryos. This suggests that while there might be niche support, the broader scientific community remains wary, if not openly hostile, to the idea of altering the human germline.
The Unusual Bedfellows: Crypto and the Future of Reproduction
Perhaps one of the most intriguing aspects of this nascent field is the financial and ideological backing it’s attracting. Harrington states Preventive’s $30 million funding comes from “private funders who share our commitment to pursuing this research responsibly.” He declined to name them beyond SciFounders, a venture firm he runs with his business partner, Matt Krisiloff.
Intriguingly, the idea of edited babies has garnered significant attention from figures in the cryptocurrency business. Brian Armstrong, the billionaire founder of Coinbase, has hosted off-the-record dinners to discuss the technology, with Harrington among the attendees. Armstrong has publicly argued that “the time is right” for a startup in this area. Will Harborne, a crypto entrepreneur and partner at LongGame Ventures, echoed this sentiment, calling widespread adoption “inevitable” if safe, and even a “societal obligation.”
It’s an interesting convergence: the decentralized, disruption-focused ethos of the crypto world meeting the ultimate frontier of biological engineering. Harborne’s fund has already invested in Herasight, a company that uses genetic tests to rank IVF embryos for traits like future IQ—a technology already on the market due to lax regulation. These ventures are increasingly being referred to as “human enhancement companies,” signaling a shift from purely medical applications to something far broader.
What Lies Ahead: A Call for Dialogue and Deliberation
Lucas Harrington believes that by demonstrating serious, responsible research, Preventive can shift attitudes. He argues that many scientists privately accept embryo editing as inevitable or are enthusiastic about its potential but hesitate to voice these opinions publicly. “Part of being more public about this is to encourage others in the field to discuss this instead of ignoring it,” he wrote.
This is a critical point. Whether one supports or opposes the concept, the technology for heritable genome editing is advancing. Ignoring it won’t make it disappear. Companies like Preventive, even with their current lack of mainstream scientific endorsement, are forcing the conversation into the open. The stakes are profoundly high, touching upon our understanding of disease, disability, and what it means to be human.
The journey from a $30 million investment to a future of gene-edited babies is fraught with scientific, ethical, and societal challenges. It demands careful deliberation, transparent research, robust regulation, and a global dialogue that encompasses not just scientists and entrepreneurs, but ethicists, policymakers, and the public. As we stand at the precipice of such a transformative technology, it’s clear that the decisions we make today will echo for generations to come, shaping not just our health, but our very humanity.
