Crypto billionaire plans to invest in "embryo editing," to host private industry dinner in Q3, facing academic 10-year moratorium
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Crypto billionaire plans to invest in "embryo editing," to host private industry dinner in Q3, facing academic 10-year moratorium
Genome editing not only has limited practical medical applications, but also poses long-term risks with unknown consequences.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsBy Luohua, Antonio
Recently, billionaire and Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong said he is prepared to invest in a U.S. startup focused on human embryo gene editing.
He publicly recruited gene-editing scientists or computational biology/machine learning engineers on social media platform X to form a founding team for "embryo editing" research targeting unmet medical needs such as genetic diseases. He invited applicants to attend a private dinner by submitting a form answering several questions, including “What’s something great you’ve created?”
In his post, he included an image of a seven-year-old Pew Research Center public opinion survey showing strong American support for altering babies’ genes if it can treat disease—though the same survey found most oppose experimenting on embryos.
Just weeks earlier, multiple biotech industry groups and academic organizations jointly called for a 10-year moratorium on heritable human genome editing, arguing the technology offers limited real-world medical benefits while posing long-term risks with unknown consequences.
These institutions warned that the ability to “program” ideal traits or eliminate undesirable genes could lead to a new form of eugenics, with impacts that would “fundamentally alter the trajectory of human evolution.”
To date, no American company has openly pursued embryo editing research, and the federal government does not fund such studies. In the U.S., this type of research is conducted only at two academic centers: one led by gene-editing scientist Dieter Egli at Columbia University, and another at Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU).
Funding for such research remains relatively limited, relying primarily on private grants and university funds. Many researchers at these centers say they welcome the idea of well-funded companies advancing the technology. “We genuinely welcome such collaboration,” said Paula Amato, a fertility physician at OHSU and former president of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.
They believe that if a billionaire advocates for it, the ban on gene-edited babies could potentially be lifted.
In December 2024, Armstrong announced on X that he and investor Blake Byers planned to meet entrepreneurs working on “artificial wombs,” “embryo editing,” and “next-generation in vitro fertilization.” The two previously co-founded NewLimit, a company using epigenetic reprogramming to extend human healthspan, which has raised nearly $300 million. Byers has stated that a significant portion of global GDP should be directed toward “immortality” research, including both biotechnological approaches and uploading human consciousness into computers.
Now, plans for the “embryo editing” entrepreneur meeting are underway, scheduled for the third quarter of 2025 in the San Francisco Bay Area. Attendees will include Stepan Jerabek, a postdoctoral researcher from Egli’s lab who has been testing base editing in embryos, and Lucas Harrington, a gene-editing scientist trained under Nobel laureate Jennifer Doudna.
Harrington said a venture group he helps run, SciFounders, is also considering launching an embryo editing company. In an email, he said: “We want a company to empirically assess whether embryo editing is safe, and we’re actively exploring spinning up one to do this work. We believe dedicated scientists and clinicians need to safely evaluate this technology.”
He also criticized existing bans and pauses on the technology, saying they don’t stop gene editing applications but may drive them underground, reducing safety. He noted that some biohacker groups have quietly raised small amounts of funding to advance the technology.
In contrast, Armstrong’s public statement on X reflects a more transparent approach. “This time it looks serious—they really want to get this off the ground,” said Egli. The scientist hopes the Coinbase CEO might fund part of his lab’s research. “I think his public stance is valuable—it helps gauge public sentiment, observe reactions, and promote public discourse.”
In 2015, news emerged from China that researchers had used CRISPR to edit human embryos in the lab, sending shockwaves globally—revealing how theoretically simple it was to alter human heredity. In 2017, a report from Oregon claimed successful correction of disease-causing DNA mutations in lab-grown embryos derived from patient eggs and sperm.
But this breakthrough came with caveats. Scientists like Egli later found through more rigorous testing that CRISPR could severely damage cells, often causing large chromosomal deletions. Beyond mosaicism (where different cells undergo different edits), this seemingly precise DNA editing tool can cause undetectable destructive effects.
While the public debates the ethics of “CRISPR babies,” the scientific community focuses on fundamental challenges and solutions. Since then, the field has shifted toward base editing—modifying individual DNA bases. This method causes fewer unintended effects and theoretically allows multiple beneficial genetic variants to be introduced into an embryo, rather than just single modifications. Earlier methods involved cutting the double helix, damaging it and potentially deleting entire genes.
Currently, gene editing is approved only for treating adult diseases—for example, gene therapies for sickle cell anemia cost over $2 million. In contrast, embryo editing could be extremely low-cost: if performed early in embryo development, all somatic cells would carry the edited gene.
However, gene editing is far from mature enough to create “designer babies.” Achieving this goal requires overcoming numerous technical hurdles, including precisely designing editing systems and developing systematic methods to detect abnormal DNA changes in embryos—precisely the direction Armstrong’s targeted investment would pursue.
As of publication, Armstrong has not responded to emails from MIT Technology Review seeking comment on his plans, nor has his company Coinbase.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
