A biotech startup, Manhattan Genomics, says it plans to revisit human embryo editing to prevent inherited disease, a move surfacing seven years after the first gene-edited babies were revealed. The company is seeking to restart a field that has been largely paused since 2018, raising fresh scientific, legal, and ethical questions about how far reproductive genetics should go and who gets to decide.
Seven years after the first gene-edited babies were revealed, biotech startup Manhattan Genomics is reviving the idea of editing human embryos to make disease-free children.
Memory of 2018 Still Shapes the Debate
The idea carries heavy history. In 2018, Chinese researcher He Jiankui announced the birth of twin girls with edits to the CCR5 gene. He said the aim was to reduce HIV risk. The announcement sparked global backlash over safety, consent, and oversight. China later sentenced He for illegal medical practices. Scientific groups called for tighter rules. Many countries reinforced bans on heritable, or germline, editing.
Since then, expert bodies like the World Health Organization and the International Society for Stem Cell Research have urged caution. They recommended strict conditions, transparent oversight, and public engagement before any clinical use. No country has approved routine clinical germline editing. In most places, it remains illegal or under strict moratorium.
What Manhattan Genomics Says It Wants to Do
The company’s stated goal is to prevent serious inherited conditions by editing embryos before pregnancy. While details are scarce, such programs often target single-gene disorders with severe impact, such as Tay-Sachs disease or cystic fibrosis. Advocates argue that editing could spare families from repeated heartbreak. They also say some couples cannot find usable embryos through current screening methods.
Critics counter that existing approaches—preimplantation genetic testing and donor gametes—address many cases without altering the human germline. They warn that off-target edits, mosaicism, and unanticipated effects could carry down generations. They also highlight issues of consent, since future children cannot consent to permanent genetic changes.
Science Has Advanced, But Risks Remain
Editing tools have improved since 2018. Base editors and prime editing can make more precise changes than early CRISPR methods. Yet independent studies still flag error rates and unintended effects that vary by cell type and target sequence. Embryo editing adds complexity because each early cell division can lock in different edits, producing mosaic embryos.
Key technical risks include:
- Off-target changes that may cause disease later in life.
- Mosaicism, where not every cell carries the intended edit.
- Unknown long-term effects passed to future generations.
Law, Access, and Equity Questions
Regulations differ across countries. In the United States, federal funds cannot be used for embryo editing that leads to pregnancy, and the FDA is barred from reviewing such applications for now. Many European nations ban heritable editing outright. Some jurisdictions allow lab research but not implantation.
Any clinical push by Manhattan Genomics would face a maze of approvals and likely public hearings. If done outside strict oversight, it could prompt sanctions. There is also the question of access. If allowed, such procedures could be expensive, raising concerns about widening health gaps and the risk of non-medical uses.
Industry Reaction and Public Sentiment
Scientists who support cautious progress say limited trials might be justified only for severe conditions where other options fail, and only after rigorous animal and embryo research. Ethicists urge broad public input and independent review before any pregnancy attempts. Patient groups, often hopeful for cures, stress safety and transparency.
Manhattan Genomics’ move is likely to face scrutiny from regulators, medical societies, and the public. Some will see a necessary step to reduce suffering. Others will see it as a line that should not be crossed.
What to Watch Next
Several signals will show how real and how near the company’s plans are: formal regulatory filings, publication of preclinical data, partnership announcements, and any stated country of operation. Clear protocols for informed consent, embryo handling, and long-term follow-up will also be telling. Independent oversight and data sharing would be essential markers of credibility.
Manhattan Genomics has reignited a charged conversation. The science is moving, but the rules and trust must keep pace. The next steps—what data the company releases, where it seeks approval, and how it engages the public—will determine whether this effort advances cautious medicine or repeats past mistakes. For now, the central test remains the same: can embryo editing be made safe, necessary, and fairly governed, or should it remain off-limits?
Kirstie a technology news reporter at DevX. She reports on emerging technologies and startups waiting to skyrocket.
