For months, a small San Francisco startup called Preventive has been quietly pursuing a groundbreaking—and highly controversial—project: the birth of the world’s first genetically engineered baby designed to prevent hereditary diseases. Backed by influential tech figures including OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and his husband Oliver Mulherin, as well as Coinbase co-founder Brian Armstrong, the company aims to use CRISPR gene-editing technology on human embryos. This effort comes despite federal bans in the U.S. and widespread ethical concerns globally.

Preventive’s founders, Saad Siddiqui and Dr. Arya Sadeghi, both 25, envision a future where in vitro fertilization (IVF) allows parents to select embryos with edited genes to eliminate risks like hereditary breast cancer. According to reports, the company has raised $30 million and is collaborating with fertility clinics abroad to bypass U.S. restrictions, as detailed in a recent article by The Wall Street Journal.

The Silicon Valley Push for Reproductive Revolution

The initiative reflects a broader Silicon Valley fascination with bioengineering human life. Altman, a prominent investor in longevity and AI, has expressed optimism about gene editing’s potential. In a statement reported by StartupNews.fyi, Preventive emphasizes that their goal is preventive health, stating, ‘We believe that if proven safe, this could be one of the most important health technologies of our lifetimes.’

However, the project has sparked alarm among bioethicists. The technology draws parallels to the 2018 scandal involving Chinese scientist He Jiankui, who claimed to have created the first gene-edited babies, leading to his imprisonment. As noted in an NPR report from August 2025, NPR highlights bioethicists’ warnings: ‘Just because it’s possible doesn’t mean it should be done.’

Navigating Legal and Ethical Minefields

U.S. law prohibits federal funding for embryo editing and the FDA bars clinical trials involving heritable genetic changes. Preventive plans to conduct work overseas, potentially in countries with laxer regulations. A Hindustan Times article from November 9, 2025, reports that the company has identified a couple with a genetic disease interested in participating, per Hindustan Times.

Critics argue this could exacerbate inequalities, creating ‘designer babies’ accessible only to the wealthy. MIT Technology Review, in an October 31, 2025 piece, quotes experts questioning the safety: ‘Entrepreneurs say it’s time to safety-test designer baby technology,’ but many scientists remain skeptical, as per MIT Technology Review.

Historical Context and Global Controversies

The quest revives debates from He’s 2018 experiment, detailed in a 2019 PMC article where scientists called it ‘irresponsible and too early,’ according to PMC. Recent posts on X (formerly Twitter) echo these concerns, with users like Lawyerforlaws warning of ‘a new era of human experimentation’ in discussions around ethics and bans.

Nature’s November 3, 2025, article features ‘Biotech Barbie’ advocating for CRISPR babies, but notes researchers’ worries about changing attitudes, as reported by Nature. ABC News from September 2025 highlights ethical issues spurred by Silicon Valley investors and pronatalists, per ABC News.

Technological Advances Fueling the Debate

CRISPR, the gene-editing tool, has advanced rapidly since 2012, enabling precise DNA modifications. NPR’s August 12, 2025, podcast discusses how post-birth gene therapies are common, but embryonic editing remains taboo due to off-target effects risks, as per NPR.

Preventive’s approach involves screening and editing embryos for traits like intelligence or disease resistance, though they claim focus on health. Healthline’s February 2025 explainer on designer babies raises concerns about editing for non-medical enhancements, according to Healthline.

Investor Backing and Industry Implications

With backing from Altman and Armstrong, Preventive joins a wave of biotech startups. Metro News on November 9, 2025, quotes company statements on the technology’s potential, per Metro News. Nigerian CommunicationsWeek reports fears of leading to births illegal under U.S. law, as detailed in Nigerian CommunicationsWeek.

X posts from users like Agingdoc highlight startups pushing reproductive genetics boundaries, reflecting public sentiment on potential disease prevention versus ethical risks.

Bioethics and Societal Impact

Experts warn of slippery slopes toward eugenics. A GB News post on X from June 2025 raises concerns over DNA testing newborns, echoing broader fears of data misuse in genetic tech.

Jim Ferguson’s X post from October 2025 discusses related tech like lab-made eggs, calling it ‘female erasure’ and urging bans, indicating intersecting debates on gender and reproduction.

Regulatory Responses and Future Outlook

Global bodies like the WHO have called for moratoriums on heritable editing. MIT Technology Review’s November 3, 2025, newsletter notes the latest funding for gene-edited baby plans, per MIT Technology Review.

As Preventive advances, industry insiders watch closely. NPR’s August 5, 2025, report on rebooting genetically modified babies quests underscores ongoing ethical tensions, according to NPR.

Risks and Scientific Hurdles

Off-target mutations remain a key risk, as seen in He’s case. Concerned Citizen’s X post from March 2025 links genetic tech to broader concerns like mRNA in food, highlighting public distrust.

Law-or-Fiction’s older X post on gene therapy trials in children underscores consent issues, relevant to embryonic editing where future generations can’t consent.

Public Sentiment and Media Coverage

Recent X activity, including posts from Tara Imani and Paige, expresses shock at tech titans ‘playing God’ in California, per various X discussions.

Karen Berryhill’s X post from November 2025 notes that while lab tools exist, producing human babies via editing isn’t safe or ethical, aligning with scientific consensus.

The Broader Biotech Landscape

Preventive’s efforts could influence fertility markets. Hacker News 20’s X post links to discussions on bans and tech pursuits, reflecting online debates.

As debates intensify, the intersection of tech wealth and biotech innovation continues to challenge regulatory frameworks worldwide.