Gene-edited babies are the future – but these CRISPR start-ups aren’t

I hate to tell you this, but every child is a genetic experiment, and nature doesn’t care if something goes wrong. Our genomes is a terrible mess created by conflicting evolutionary forces, and each of us is a new roll of the genetic dice, with a hundred or so brands–new random mutations have been added to the mix.

For this reason, I have no doubt that if civilization survives the various looming crises – including, but not limited to, climate change – gene editing of embryos will one day become commonplace. After all, natural conception may even become irresponsible.

We have a very long way to go before we get to that point – although you'd be forgiven for thinking otherwise if you've been listening to the hype around the tech bros this year. In 2025, we learned of no less than three startups whose goal is to create gene-edited children.

So, CRISPR Children are just around the corner – or could such startups be counterproductive?

Preventing genetic diseases

Two startups – Manhattan Genomics And Prophylactic – said their goal was to prevent serious inherited diseases, not to improve people's health. A worthy goal. But the good news is that such conditions can already be prevented through various screening methods, such as genetic testing of IVF embryos before implantation. There are very few cases where screening will fail.

So why would you look for a company to develop a technically and legally complex product – gene-edited embryos – when there is already a product – IVF screening – without these problems?

When I asked both companies this question, Preventive did not respond, but a representative from Manhattan Genomics said that couples undergoing IVF often don't have enough embryos to choose from. If embryos carrying the disease can be edited rather than discarded, it increases the chances of having a baby. The company estimates that gene editing “could correct approximately 10 embryos affected by Huntington's disease and 35 embryos affected by sickle cell disease each year just for couples currently using IVF.”

This corresponds to a small number of children – only about a third of IVF implanted embryos result in a live birth, and after editing this number is likely to be lower. Moreover, there are serious problems with this. First, although CRISPR techniques have advanced significantly, there is still a risk of dangerous mutations occurring as a side effect.

Second, the editing process often does not begin or may continue after the embryo begins to divide. This means that different cells of the same embryo will experience different changes – a phenomenon called mosaicism. seen in CRISPR children illegally created in China and announced in 2018.

This means that you cannot tell for sure whether the disease-causing mutation has been successfully corrected in the edited embryo and without any harmful mutations. It's an amazing sight.

Let's do it right

There are potential solutions. For example, some gene-edited animals are created by altering stem cells and then cloning the cells once you are sure they have the desired changes. However, as I described in my previous columnCloned animals have many health problems and unexpected physical differences. This is why much more basic research is needed and why careful study will be extremely important if this approach is ever tried in humans.

We now have two excellent examples of how gene editing in embryos can be implemented responsibly – the rise of mitochondrial donation in the UK and Australia. Mitochondria are energy-producing structures in cells that have their own tiny genome. Mutated mitochondria can cause serious illness if passed on to children, but this can be avoided by replacing them with healthy donor mitochondria.

A form of mitochondrial technique was introduced by private fertility clinics in the US in the 1990s, leading to the birth of what I would call first genetically modified humans. These early attempts led to the method being banned in the United States.

Mitochondrial donation was previously illegal in the UK, but following a campaign by patient groups and widespread consultation and discussion, the law was changed and now there is approval on a case-by-case basis on a trial basis. Australia I do almost the same thing.

What is the real goal?

This is how new reproductive methods should be introduced: openly, legally and through independent controlled trials. Instead, at least two startups reportedly considering conduct experiments in countries where there are fewer laws regulating the use of gene editing in embryos.

This will not advance science because we will not be able to trust the claims of private companies operating outside of regulatory oversight. Instead, it could lead to a backlash as more countries introduce or tighten laws banning gene editing.

If Preventive's billionaire investors include OpenAI's Sam Altman and Brian Armstrong from CoinbaseFor example, if they really cared about preventing serious inherited diseases, they would do much better by investing in non-profit research organizations.

Or, instead of helping other couples have healthy children, the end goal is to have enhanced children of our own? This is the explicit goal of the third startup. Bootstrap Biography.

So, can we use gene editing to improve our children if we want? I'll give you the answer in my column next month.

Topics: