According to MIT Technology Review, a West Coast biotech entrepreneur has secured $30 million to form a public-benefit company called Preventive that will research heritable genome editing, marking the largest known investment into this taboo technology. The company aims to study how to safely create genetically edited babies by modifying embryo DNA to correct harmful mutations or install beneficial genes, with the goal of preventing disease. The technology remains highly contentious, with the first scientist to create gene-edited babies in China being imprisoned for three years, and the procedure remains illegal in many countries including the US. In a separate development, startup Still Bright is developing cleaner copper production methods using water-based reactions based on battery chemistry technology that could be less polluting than traditional smelting while easing strain on copper supply chains. These parallel developments highlight how emerging technologies are pushing ethical and environmental boundaries.
The Stakeholder Landscape for Heritable Gene Editing
The $30 million investment into Preventive represents a significant shift in how venture capital approaches controversial biotechnologies. While traditional biotech investors typically focus on near-term returns, this funding suggests a growing appetite for longer-term, higher-risk technologies that could fundamentally reshape human biology. For patients with inherited genetic disorders, this research offers potential hope for eliminating diseases from family lines entirely, but it also raises complex questions about who gets access to such expensive interventions and whether this could exacerbate healthcare disparities. Medical professionals face the challenge of navigating both the technical safety concerns and the profound ethical questions about modifying future generations without their consent.
The Regulatory Minefield Ahead
The regulatory environment for heritable genome editing remains fragmented globally, creating both challenges and potential loopholes for companies like Preventive. While the US maintains strict prohibitions, other countries have more permissive frameworks, raising concerns about regulatory tourism where companies might seek more favorable jurisdictions. The public-benefit corporation structure chosen by Preventive is particularly interesting—it suggests an attempt to position the company as mission-driven rather than purely profit-oriented, potentially helping navigate ethical concerns. However, this structure doesn’t eliminate the fundamental safety questions that have led most scientists to call for moratoriums on clinical applications until technical and ethical frameworks are better established.
Copper’s Clean Technology Revolution
Still Bright’s approach to cleaner copper production arrives at a critical moment for the global metals industry. Copper demand is projected to grow significantly due to electrification and renewable energy infrastructure, yet traditional smelting methods remain environmentally problematic. The company’s water-based reaction technology, derived from battery chemistry principles, represents a fascinating cross-pollination of cleantech innovations. If scalable, this could address one of the dirty secrets of the green transition—that building renewable energy infrastructure currently requires environmentally damaging mining and processing methods. The success of such technologies could determine whether the clean energy revolution truly lives up to its environmental promises or simply shifts pollution from one sector to another.
Supply Chain and Economic Implications
The timing for copper innovation couldn’t be more strategic. With global copper demand expected to double by 2035 according to industry forecasts, supply chain constraints are becoming a major bottleneck for everything from electric vehicles to grid infrastructure. Still Bright’s technology, if successful, could not only reduce environmental impact but also potentially lower production costs and increase supply flexibility. For mining companies and manufacturers dependent on copper, such innovations could mean the difference between meeting climate goals and facing critical material shortages. However, the challenge will be scaling laboratory successes to industrial production—a hurdle that has defeated many promising extraction technologies before.
The Fundamental Ethical Divide
What connects these two seemingly disparate technologies is how they represent different approaches to humanity’s relationship with nature. Gene editing seeks to overcome biological limitations through direct intervention in life’s fundamental code, while clean copper production aims to work within natural systems more harmoniously. This contrast highlights a deeper philosophical question emerging across multiple technology sectors: should we seek to dominate and redesign natural systems, or develop technologies that work in greater alignment with them? The answer to this question may ultimately determine not just which technologies succeed commercially, but what kind of technological civilization we’re building for the future.
