$30 million: that's the amount raised by two Silicon Valley startups to do something that's banned in the US, where the funds were raised: genetically modifying human embryos destined for birth. Preventive e Manhattan GenomicsThese two startups are working with CRISPR technology to rewrite DNA before a child is born. Their backers include some big names: Sam altman by OpenAI, Brian armstrong from Coinbase, Peter Thiel PayPal. The stated goal is to prevent hereditary diseases such as sickle cell anemia or cystic fibrosis, and since the US FDA bans any clinical trials on modified embryos, startups are seeking more permissive jurisdictions. United Arab Emirates, Honduras. Places where the rules are written with less rigor and ethical controls weigh less than patents. Is the era of “GMO babies” beginning in the open?
Startups that want to create genetically modified children
Preventive, founded by the scientist Lucas Harrington (student of the pioneer CRISPR and Nobel Prize winner jennifer doudna), is based in San Francisco and according to the Wall Street Journal has already evaluated the possibility of operating in the United Arab Emirates. Manhattan Genomics, co-founded by Cathy Tie (nicknamed "Biotech Barbie" by the media), is instead targeting Honduras. Tie has a peculiar history: she was briefly married to He Jiankui, the Chinese scientist who in 2018 created the first genetically modified babies and ended up in prison for three years.
The technology is the same: CRISPR-Cas9, the molecular scissors that cut and rewrite DNA sequences with surgical precision. As we have reported when analyzing the upcoming CRISPR therapies, the technique has already demonstrated effectiveness in treating blood diseases in adults: applying it to embryos, obviously, is a completely different leap in scale.
GMO babies: why they are banned in the US
The FDA can't approve clinical trials involving the implantation of modified embryos. It's not a bureaucratic issue: the problem is heritable changes. When you cut and paste an embryo's DNA, those changes are passed on to future generations. Forever. According to a study published in Nature, 40% of embryos treated with CRISPR show abnormalities: macrodeletions, chromosomal rearrangements, even loss of entire chromosomes.
Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist at NYU, explains it with a powerful metaphor: "No one should kill or deform a child just because they hoped it would make them a better violinist." The reference is not accidental. Startups talk about curing diseases, but polygenic screening technology would already allow embryos to be selected based on physical or cognitive characteristics: height, eye color, predisposition to intelligence. Is this right? Is it wrong?
The Chinese Precedent and Armstrong's Plan
In 2018, He Jiankui announced the birth of Lulu and Nana, twins with DNA modified to resist HIV. The scientific community reacted with horror. China sentenced him to three years in prison for "illegal medical practice." But He was released and resumed his work on gene editing. His ex-wife now runs Manhattan Genomics with the support of Peter Thiel.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Brian armstrong He proposed a specific strategy: work in secret, then "shock the world" by presenting a perfectly healthy, genetically modified baby. A spokeswoman for Armstrong denied the claim, calling it "a terrible plan." But the question remains: if the technology really worked, how much pressure would it take to get it accepted?
GMO children: the issue isn't just ethical.
The issue is not whether the technology will work. Because, you know, it will probably work. CRISPR improves every year: base editing, prime editing, increasingly precise techniques. The problem, if any, is who will have access. A CRISPR therapy costs hundreds of thousands of dollars: embryo editing will be no different. Imagine a world where only the wealthy can "free their children" from genetic diseases. Or worse: they can select for desirable traits.
Stephen Hawking He warned that encountering technologically superior civilizations rarely ends well for the less advanced one. Does this also apply within the same species? If one social class can genetically modify its children and the other cannot, we're talking about capital-driven evolution. In any case, perhaps with an eye to expanding it to all at a later stage, according to a survey cited by Nature a majority of Americans would support gene editing to prevent disease.
Lucas Harrington, founder of Preventive, is clear: "We have no intention of rushing things. We will publish all the results, positive or negative." But "transparency" is all too easy when the money is already in the bank and the laboratories are in countries where ethics committees have less weight than the chamber of commerce.
We need rules, not bans
Michael Garrett, a bioethicist at Arizona State University, put it clearly: "This is a dangerous time." Not because science is bad, but because it is advancing faster than institutions. Genetically modified children could arrive before there is a global consensus on how to regulate them.
The technology exists. The money is there. Startups have found compliant jurisdictions. Do we want to decide together how to use it, or should we once again let the market decide for us? Because when the first GM baby is born (and it will be), it will be too late to discuss whether it was a good idea or not.
