Biotech Barbie wants to edit humanity — scientists aren’t sure we’re ready
Cathy Tie, a 29-year-old entrepreneur who once dubbed herself "Biotech Barbie," has launched Manhattan Genomics, a company that aims to explore genome editing in human embryos to prevent inherited diseases. Her announcement has drawn both intrigue and alarm within the scientific community, marking a new stage in the long-running controversy over so-called "CRISPR babies," Kazinform News Agency correspondent reports, citing Nature.
Tie, who dropped out of university at 18, has since built several ventures in genetic testing and digital healthcare. Co-founded with Eriona Hysolli, formerly of de-extinction firm Colossal Biosciences, Manhattan Genomics plans to develop methods for precise genetic modification at the embryonic stage. Tie compares the ambition to the Manhattan Project, arguing the stakes for human health are similarly high.
The New York-based company announced its first scientific consultants in late October, including a bioethicist and reproductive biology specialists. While specific diseases and techniques remain undisclosed, Tie insists research will proceed with extensive safety testing. California-based startup Preventive announced similar plans the same day, signaling a potential private-sector race in a field most governments still prohibit.
The work remains deeply controversial due to Chinese scientist He Jiankui, who in 2018 announced the birth of the world's first gene-edited babies. His experiment, aimed at HIV resistance, was condemned globally as premature and unethical, earning him three years in prison. Since then, many researchers and governments have called for moratoriums on heritable genome editing. In the United States, federal funds cannot support such studies, and the FDA is barred from approving clinical use of genetically altered embryos.
Advocates like Tie argue that newer technologies, base editing and prime editing, have matured enough to revisit embryo editing. These methods can modify DNA without cutting both strands, theoretically reducing mutation risks. "A lot of new advances have made gene editing safer and more accurate," Tie says.
But biochemist Alexis Komor warns: "The bar for safety is so, so, so, so high, and we're definitely not there yet."
Editing embryos poses unique dangers: unintended mutations could affect every cell and be inherited by future generations. Existing screening technologies already allow couples to avoid passing on genetic disorders without altering embryos.
Junjiu Huang, who first edited human embryos in 2015, calls Manhattan Genomics' launch "inappropriate," arguing the technology, ethics, and legal frameworks remain immature. Tie counters that progress requires scientists to engage responsibly rather than avoid the issue.
For now, Tie insists the focus is strictly therapeutic. Most experts say enhancing traits like intelligence remains scientifically out of reach given genetic complexity, though some acknowledge such limits may not hold forever.
Earlier, Kazinform News Agency reported on the future of human genome editing.