The Promise and Peril of Heritable Genome Editing

The new venture, named Preventive, is the brainchild of gene-editing scientist Lucas Harrington. Harrington outlined his vision in a recent blog post, emphasizing a cautious and responsible approach. Preventive’s stated goal is not to rush into clinical applications, but to rigorously investigate whether altering the human germline – changes that would be passed down to future generations – can be achieved safely and ethically.

The concept of genetically editing humans remains deeply controversial. The world witnessed the repercussions of reckless experimentation in 2018 when Chinese scientist He Jiankui announced the birth of twin girls whose genomes he had altered using CRISPR technology. He was subsequently sentenced to three years in prison, and the procedure remains illegal in many nations, including the United States. Skepticism persists regarding the actual medical benefits of such interventions.

Despite these concerns, the rapid advancements in gene-editing technologies, particularly CRISPR-Cas9, are fueling a growing interest in the possibility of shaping the human species. Proponents theorize that precise genetic modifications could eradicate inherited diseases like cystic fibrosis or Huntington’s disease, and potentially even enhance traits like resistance to heart disease or Alzheimer’s disease, as explored in recent research. Harrington estimates the cost of editing a single embryo could be as low as $5,000, anticipating potential shifts in regulatory landscapes.

A Growing Field of Startups

Preventive is not alone in this pursuit. It represents the third US-based startup this year to publicly announce its intention to develop gene-editing technologies for reproductive purposes. Bootstrap Bio, based in California, is reportedly seeking seed funding with a focus on cognitive enhancement, while Manhattan Genomics is in the early stages of formation, though it has yet to secure funding, according to Wired.

However, these ventures currently lack substantial infrastructure and are largely viewed with skepticism by established gene-editing scientists. Fyodor Urnov, a leading expert at the University of California, Berkeley – where Harrington previously studied – expressed strong opposition. “I believe such ventures should not move forward,” Urnov stated in an email. He has consistently criticized heritable genome editing as dangerous and a distraction from the more immediate and beneficial applications of gene editing for treating existing illnesses.

Urnov’s reaction to the launch of Preventive was particularly strong, describing it as a source of profound disappointment. “It made me want to howl with pain,” he confessed.

A Public-Benefit Corporation with a Complex Backing

Preventive Medicine PBC, incorporated in Delaware in May 2025, is structured as a public-benefit corporation, prioritizing its public mission over profit maximization. Harrington asserts that a negative outcome – demonstrating the inherent unsafety of heritable genome editing – would be as valuable to the scientific community as a positive one. He is also a co-founder and board member of Mammoth Biosciences, a gene-editing company focused on therapies for adults.

The company has sought endorsements from prominent figures in the field, securing only one to date: Paula Amato, a fertility doctor at Oregon Health Sciences University. Amato has been involved in research on embryo editing since 2017 and has advocated for its potential to improve IVF success rates by correcting genetic abnormalities in embryos.

The source of Preventive’s $30 million in funding remains partially obscured. Harrington disclosed that the funds came from “private funders” committed to responsible research, but declined to name them beyond identifying SciFounders, a venture firm he co-runs with Matt Krisiloff, CEO of Conception, a company aiming to create human eggs from stem cells, as reported by MIT Technology Review.

Interestingly, the prospect of edited babies has garnered attention from the cryptocurrency world. Brian Armstrong, founder of Coinbase, has hosted private dinners to discuss the technology, attended by Harrington, and previously stated the “time is right” for investment. Will Harborne, a crypto entrepreneur, expressed enthusiasm for Preventive’s launch, suggesting widespread adoption is “inevitable” if the technology proves safe and even a “societal obligation.” Harborne’s fund has invested in Herasight, a company that uses genetic testing to rank IVF embryos.

What remains conspicuously absent is broad support from leading gene-editing specialists. Preventive reportedly failed to establish a collaborative relationship with at least one key research group, and Urnov rebuffed Manhattan Genomics with a blunt message: “I encourage you to stop. You will cause zero good and formidable harm.”

Harrington believes that demonstrating a commitment to responsible research could shift prevailing attitudes. “Most scientists I speak with either accept embryo editing as inevitable or are enthusiastic about the potential but hesitate to voice these opinions publicly,” he stated. “Part of being more public about this is to encourage others in the field to discuss this instead of ignoring it.”

What ethical lines should be drawn when it comes to altering the human genome? And how can we ensure equitable access to these technologies, should they become a reality?

Frequently Asked Questions About Gene Editing