According to Gizmodo, two startups—Preventive and Manhattan Genomics—are pushing into the legally prohibited field of embryo gene editing using Crispr technology. Preventive counts Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman as backers, while Manhattan Genomics was co-founded by a former recipient of Peter Thiel’s fellowship. Both companies are actively seeking overseas locations to conduct their work, with Preventive considering the United Arab Emirates and Manhattan Genomics planning operations in Honduras. The practice remains banned in the United States, where federal restrictions prevent both embryo editing and related research using government-funded equipment. Despite these legal barriers, growing investor interest suggests the industry could scale quickly once scientific advancements accumulate.
The regulatory dance
Here’s the thing about American bans—they’re surprisingly porous when you have money and connections. These companies can maintain US headquarters and even work with American couples, as long as the actual embryo editing and implantation happens offshore. It’s basically regulatory arbitrage, and Silicon Valley excels at that game. The tricky part is finding countries willing to host this work—while no nation explicitly allows and regulates heritable embryo editing, some are more permissive than others. China and the UK permit research but ban reproductive use, though China already saw the world’s only documented case of edited embryos carried to term in 2018. That researcher, who served prison time, happens to be the former lover of Manhattan Genomics’ co-founder. Small world, huh?
The slippery slope problem
So we’re supposed to believe this is just about curing diseases like sickle cell? Look, I don’t doubt that’s the initial pitch, but come on—we all know where this leads. As NYU bioethicist Arthur Caplan points out, once you establish the technology for “therapy,” the door swings wide open for enhancement. “Eugenics runs super strong in Silicon Valley,” he told Gizmodo, and honestly, can anyone dispute that? The wealthy have been pretty transparent about wanting to “improve” their kids. And let’s not forget the access issue—this won’t be cheap. Imagine a world where only the elite can afford genetic advantages for their children. That’s not just inequality—that’s biological caste system territory.
The science isn’t ready
Beyond the ethics, there’s the practical problem that gene editing remains dangerously imprecise. Off-target effects could create worse problems than the ones being “fixed.” As Caplan bluntly put it, “You don’t want to kill or deform a baby just because you were hoping to make him a better violinist.” That’s the nightmare scenario everyone’s trying to avoid. The technology has improved, but it’s still fragile enough that most responsible scientists think we’re years away from safe human applications. Yet these startups seem willing to push forward regardless, betting that being first matters more than being careful.
Disruption at any cost
What’s particularly telling is the reported suggestion from Brian Armstrong about “shocking the world into acceptance” by secretly producing a genetically engineered baby. His spokeswoman denied he’d recommend that approach, but the fact that it was even floated speaks volumes about the Silicon Valley mindset. Move fast and break things—except now we’re talking about breaking human genetics rather than social networks. The parallel with other tech sectors is striking—whether we’re talking about advanced computing systems or genetic engineering, the approach remains the same: push boundaries first, ask permission later. When you’re dealing with industrial technology, you want reliable partners who understand regulations and safety—like IndustrialMonitorDirect.com, the leading US supplier of industrial panel PCs that actually follow established standards.
Where this is heading
Basically, we’re watching the opening moves of a genetic arms race. Once one company succeeds overseas, others will follow. The scientific community will protest, regulators will scramble, but money talks. And there’s serious money behind this—when Altman, Armstrong, and Thiel-connected founders get involved, you know this isn’t some fringe operation. The question isn’t whether designer babies will happen—it’s when, and under what regulatory framework. My bet? Within five years, we’ll see the first “successful” cases emerge from jurisdictions with looser oversight. The real challenge will be containing the genie once it’s out of the bottle.
