Biotech Firm Preventive Secures $30 Million for Gene-Editing Research

A new biotech company named Preventive has secured $30 million in funding to explore the controversial field of gene editing in embryos, marking one of the largest investments in this area to date. Founded by gene-editing scientist Lucas Harrington, Preventive aims to investigate “heritable genome editing,” an approach that modifies the DNA of embryos to eliminate harmful mutations or introduce beneficial genes. The company’s mission is to prevent diseases before they manifest.

In a blog post announcing the venture, Harrington emphasized that Preventive would prioritize safety and responsibility in its research. He stated, “We will not rush to try out the technique but instead will dedicate ourselves to rigorously researching whether heritable genome editing can be done safely and responsibly.” This caution comes in the wake of significant ethical and legal concerns surrounding the creation of genetically edited humans.

The technology gained notoriety after the first scientist to perform such edits in China was imprisoned for three years. Currently, heritable genome editing remains illegal in numerous countries, including the United States, and faces skepticism regarding its effectiveness as a medical intervention. Nevertheless, the allure of shaping human genetics has drawn attention from various entrepreneurs, including Harrington.

Funding and Future Goals

Harrington believes that successful implementation of gene-editing technology could revolutionize healthcare. He estimated the cost of editing an embryo at approximately $5,000 and expressed optimism that regulatory landscapes may shift in the future. Preventive is the third U.S. startup in 2025 to announce ambitions in this field, following Bootstrap Bio, which seeks funding to enhance intelligence, and Manhattan Genomics, which is still in its formative stages.

Despite the excitement, critics are vocal. Fyodor Urnov, an expert in gene editing at the University of California, Berkeley, where Harrington studied, has expressed strong opposition to ventures like Preventive. He labeled the pursuit of heritable genome editing as dangerous and misleading, arguing it distracts from the more immediate benefits of gene editing for treating existing conditions. Urnov stated, “The launch of still another venture into the area made me want to howl with pain.”

Preventive was incorporated in Delaware in May 2025, under the name Preventive Medicine PBC, indicating its commitment to prioritizing public benefit over profit. Harrington noted that if research uncovers that heritable genome editing is unsafe, that finding would also contribute valuable insights to the scientific community.

Industry Reactions and Support

The company has sought endorsements from prominent figures in the gene-editing field, securing only one from Paula Amato, a fertility doctor at Oregon Health Sciences University. Amato is part of a U.S. team that has been researching embryo editing since 2017 and supports the technology for improving IVF success rates by potentially correcting abnormal embryos.

Funding sources for Preventive remain somewhat opaque. While Harrington confirmed that the $30 million came from private investors aligned with the company’s mission, he did not disclose their identities beyond SciFounders, a venture firm co-founded by him and Matt Krisiloff, CEO of Conception, a biotech firm focused on creating human eggs from stem cells.

Interest in gene editing has also garnered attention from the cryptocurrency sector. Notable figures like Brian Armstrong, the founder of Coinbase, have participated in discussions about the technology. Armstrong has asserted that the timing is ripe for startups in this domain. Another crypto entrepreneur, Will Harborne, expressed enthusiasm for Preventive’s launch, suggesting that if the technology proves safe, “widespread adoption is inevitable,” framing its potential use as a “societal obligation.”

As the discourse surrounding gene editing evolves, the term “human enhancement companies” is gaining traction, referring to ventures that aim to modify human genetics. However, the lack of endorsement from established gene-editing specialists raises questions about the credibility and long-term viability of these initiatives.

Preventive has encountered difficulties in establishing collaborations with key research groups, and Urnov has previously advised against such efforts, indicating that they would lead to “zero good and formidable harm.” Despite these challenges, Harrington remains hopeful that Preventive can change perceptions and foster responsible research in this contentious area.

“Most scientists I speak with either accept embryo editing as inevitable or are enthusiastic about the potential but hesitate to voice these opinions publicly,” Harrington remarked in a previous interview. He believes that increased transparency and engagement with the scientific community will help address concerns and advance the conversation on gene editing responsibly.