A biotech entrepreneur from the West Coast claims to have obtained $30 million to establish a public-benefit organization aimed at safely researching the creation of genetically modified babies, representing the most significant known investment in this controversial technology.
The new venture, named Preventive, is created to investigate “heritable genome editing,” which involves altering the DNA of embryos by rectifying harmful mutations or integrating advantageous genes to avert diseases.
Preventive was initiated by gene-editing researcher Lucas Harrington, who shared his concepts yesterday in a blog entry about the initiative. He stated that Preventive will not hastily implement the technique, but rather commit to “meticulously examining whether heritable genome editing can be executed safely and ethically.”
The creation of genetically altered humans continues to spark debate, and the initial scientist to accomplish this in China was sentenced to three years in prison. This procedure remains prohibited in numerous nations, including the US, and questions linger regarding its efficacy as a medical approach.
Nevertheless, as gene-editing innovations advance rapidly, the allure of influencing the species’ future could become irresistible, especially for entrepreneurs eager to leave their mark on humanity. Theoretically, even minor genetic modifications might result in individuals who never suffer from heart ailments or Alzheimer’s, and who would transmit those traits to their descendants.
Harrington suggests that if the method is proven safe, it “could emerge as one of the most crucial health technologies of our era.” He estimates that the cost of editing an embryo would be about $5,000 and believes regulatory changes are possible in the future.
Preventive represents the third startup in the US this year claiming to explore technology for producing gene-edited babies. The first, Bootstrap Bio, situated in California, is reportedly seeking initial investment and is focused on enhancing intelligence. Another, Manhattan Genomics, is still in the initial phases but has yet to announce any funding.
Currently, none of these enterprises possess a substantial workforce or infrastructure, and they generally lack reputation among mainstream gene-editing experts. Contacted via email, Fyodor Urnov, a gene-editing scholar at the University of California, Berkeley, where Harrington studied, expressed that he feels such projects should not proceed.
Urnov has been a vocal critic of heritable genome editing, labeling it perilous, misdirected, and a diversion from the genuine benefits of gene editing for treating adults and children.
In his email, Urnov conveyed that the initiation of another project in this field compelled him to “howl with pain.”
Harrington’s initiative was incorporated in Delaware in May 2025, under the title Preventive Medicine PBC. As a public-benefit corporation, it is structured to prioritize its public mission over profit. “If our investigation indicates that [heritable genome editing] cannot be safely executed, that finding holds equal significance for the scientific community and society,” Harrington stated in his post.
Harrington is a cofounder of Mammoth Biosciences, a gene-editing firm focused on developing medications for adults, and continues to serve as a board member there.
In recent months, Preventive has pursued endorsements from prominent genome editing figures, yet according to its announcement, it has only secured one—from Paula Amato, a fertility specialist at Oregon Health Sciences University, who stated she agreed to serve as an advisor to the organization.
Amato is part of a US team that has been researching embryo editing in the nation since 2017, and she has advocated for the technology as a means to enhance IVF success. This could be true if editing could fix abnormal embryos, increasing the number available for use in attempts to achieve pregnancy.
The source of Preventive’s funding remains uncertain. Harrington mentioned the $30 million was raised from “private backers who align with our dedication to pursuing this research responsibly.” However, he refrained from revealing the names of those investors besides SciFounders, a venture firm he co-runs with his business partner Matt Krisiloff, the CEO of the biotech enterprise Conception, which seeks to generate human eggs from stem cells.
This represents another technology that could transform reproduction, should it prove successful. Krisiloff is noted as a member of Preventive’s founding team.
The concept of edited babies has garnered increasing interest from individuals in the cryptocurrency industry. This includes Brian Armstrong, the billionaire founder of Coinbase, who has hosted a series of off-the-record dinners to discuss the technology (which Harrington participated in). Armstrong previously contended that the “time is appropriate” for a startup in this domain.
Will Harborne, a cryptocurrency entrepreneur and partner at LongGame Ventures, expressed his excitement regarding Preventive’s launch. If the technology proves to be safe, he posits, “broad acceptance is unavoidable,” branding its application a “societal responsibility.”
Harborne’s fund has backed Herasight, a firm that employs genetic examinations to rank IVF embryos for potential IQ and other characteristics. This is another highly debated technology that has already entered the market, as such testing isn’t strictly regulated. Some have started to use the term “human enhancement companies” to describe such initiatives.
What is still missing is proof that leading gene-editing experts back these initiatives. Preventive struggled to achieve a partnership with at least one significant research group, and Urnov provided harsh feedback to Manhattan Genomics when that company approached him about collaborating. “I advise you to discontinue,” he replied. “You will not produce any good and substantial harm.”
Harrington believes Preventive could alter these perspectives, provided it demonstrates commitment to conducting responsible research. “Most scientists I converse with either regard embryo editing as inevitable or are excited by its potential but are reluctant to express these views openly,” he remarked to MIT Technology Review earlier this year. “Part of being more transparent about this is to motivate others in the field to engage in dialogue rather than ignore it.”
