Despite the closure of two early embryo gene-editing ventures, investment in the controversial field of so-called "designer baby" biotechnology persists, with several start-ups and wealthy backers continuing to pursue the advancement of germ line gene editing. US-based companies Bootstrap Bio and Manhattan Genomics both ceased operations within the past year; Bootstrap Bio shut down after failing to secure further funding, while Manhattan Genomics closed following disagreements between its founders. Neither company reported significant scientific breakthroughs before their respective closures.
Bootstrap Bio's former chief science officer, Qichen Yuan, was arrested in August 2025 on charges of attempted sex trafficking of a child and later indicted. He has pleaded not guilty, with founder Chase Denecke stating Yuan had moved to an advisory role prior to the arrest and that the company was unaware of the charges until after it had folded. Manhattan Genomics ended operations due to a dispute over business location between co-founders Cathy Tie and Eriona Hysolli, with remaining capital returned to investors. Tie subsequently launched another embryo-editing startup, Origin Genomics, in March.
Meanwhile, other companies in the sector continue to attract significant funding. San Francisco-based Preventive raised nearly $30 million last year from investors including OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong. Separately, Nucleus Genomics, backed by Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund, is supporting academic research into germ line gene editing, aiming to eventually commercialize the technology. Nucleus offers embryo screening services that analyze DNA for over 30 diseases and traits such as eye color, IQ, and baldness, charging $9,999 for its service, which is available in more than 165 clinics worldwide.
Proponents of germ line gene editing emphasize its potential to prevent genetic diseases and argue that it could be a more cost-effective alternative to somatic gene therapies, which target non-reproductive cells and can cost upwards of $2 million per treatment. Designer baby startups suggest that embryo editing might one day cost as little as $5,000 per embryo. Developmental biologist Robin Lovell-Badge noted that embryo editing could offer promising solutions if proven safe and effective, underscoring that serious academic research continues in this area. However, he expressed skepticism about many start-ups’ scientific credentials and described efforts to enhance traits such as intelligence as particularly questionable.
The field remains highly controversial due to ethical concerns, with critics warning that it could lead from therapeutic applications toward eugenics-like enhancement of desirable traits. In 2018, Chinese scientist He Jiankui’s announcement of the world’s first gene-edited babies and his subsequent imprisonment cast a long shadow over the industry. Last year, several gene and cell therapy groups proposed a 10-year moratorium on heritable human genome editing, citing risks of misuse. Tim Hunt, chief executive of the Alliance for Regenerative Medicine, described germ line editing as a “slippery slope” toward eugenic applications.
Critics also question some companies’ publicly stated goals, suggesting that the primary aim may be creating “improved babies” rather than focusing solely on disease prevention. Fyodor Urnov, a genetics professor at the University of California Berkeley, acknowledged the difficulty of stopping these start-ups, though he remains hopeful their impact on genetic medicine will be minimal.
Regulatory hurdles remain significant, with many jurisdictions prohibiting germ line gene editing for reproductive purposes. Companies anticipate that early customers may include prospective parents traveling to countries with more permissive IVF regulations. Fundraising presents another challenge, as investor understanding of the technology and its commercial viability is limited, requiring a concentrated group of financially committed backers.
Despite these obstacles, investment and commercial activity in embryo editing and genetic screening continue to grow, reflecting enduring interest in one of biotechnology’s most contentious frontiers. Several companies stress strong commitments to safety and ethical standards as they seek to develop technologies that could reshape reproductive genetics in the years ahead.