Silicon Valley’s bet on ‘designer babies’: What’s happening, who’s behind it, and why it’s so contentious

Editing in embryos is banned in the US and many countries.

A San Francisco startup called Preventive, backed by major tech investors, is exploring editing human embryos to prevent inherited disease, reviving a taboo idea that is illegal in the US and widely restricted elsewhere, the Wall Street Journal reported.

How we got here

For years, gene editing has been used experimentally after birth to fix disease-causing DNA in children and adults. Moving that edit into sperm, eggs or embryos is far more controversial because changes would be inherited by future generations. The only known births from edited embryos were reported in China in 2018, a scandal that sent the scientist to prison and triggered global calls for a moratorium.

The new push from Silicon Valley

Preventive was incorporated in May in San Francisco and says it is doing preclinical research to establish safety before any human use. It announced a $30 million raise and says it would publish results and avoid clinical trials if safety cannot be shown. The company’s chief executive denies having identified a couple for embryo editing and says US regulation forces research overseas because the FDA cannot review such trials. Tech figures linked to the broader space include OpenAI’s Sam Altman, through his husband Oliver Mulherin, and Coinbase’s Brian Armstrong, who has argued that embryo-stage intervention could prevent common diseases.

Why embryo editing is legally and scientifically fraught

Editing in embryos is banned in the US and many countries. Scientists warn they still do not fully understand how genes interact, and today’s tools can cause off-target cuts or unintended deletions and insertions. Because embryo edits are heritable, any mistake could propagate through a family line. Bioethicists say that, at present, the safety–benefit trade-off is unacceptable.

Where this could happen

Because of US restrictions, startups are exploring jurisdictions that allow embryo work; Preventive has examined options abroad. Other early ventures in the field have discussed research in countries with looser frameworks. Even advocates say any clinical path would demand years of methodical safety work and complex international oversight.

The parallel boom: screening and “genetic optimization”

Alongside editing, a separate group of companies sells polygenic embryo screening to IVF patients. Rather than altering DNA, these firms analyze embryo DNA to estimate probabilities for traits and disease risks, covering everything from schizophrenia or diabetes to height and predicted IQ. Critics argue the clinical value is unproven and the marketing veers toward “corporate eugenics.” The companies insist they offer risk reduction, not superiority, and some claim clients beyond the tech elite. Prices range from a few thousand dollars per embryo to premium packages covering dozens of embryos.

The ethical fault lines

Supporters frame embryo editing as disease prevention and human flourishing; detractors warn of a slide toward eugenics, inequality and consumer-style child selection. Even some supporters of research say secrecy is unacceptable: attempting to unveil a healthy edited baby first and seek moral acceptance later would bypass public debate and regulatory scrutiny. Others fear that selective technologies, even without editing, could widen social gaps over time.

The business case—and the hype risk

The US IVF market is expanding, but no one knows how embryo editing would be commercialized or paid for. Today’s approved gene-editing therapies for living patients cost millions, though some hope embryo-stage procedures could become far cheaper. Investors are circling laboratories and licensing talks, but much of the expected return rests on unproven science and unsettled law.

What scientists say must come first

Researchers emphasise transparent, peer-reviewed preclinical work: mapping error rates, understanding mosaicism and assessing lifelong consequences in model systems. Several academic groups are expected to announce safety-related breakthroughs, which could influence whether regulators and clinicians see a pathway to controlled trials or judge the field too immature.

What to watch next

If embryo editing is to progress beyond pitch decks and speculation, it will require open science, independent oversight and laws that command public legitimacy. Until then, the faster growth is likely to remain on the screening side, where consumer demand rather than clinical consensus is shaping the market and where the line between disease prevention and trait selection is already under strain.