2025-11-01 03:27:48
A West Coast biotech entrepreneur says he’s secured $30 million to form a public-benefit company to study how to safely create genetically edited babies, marking the largest known investment into the taboo technology.
The new company, called Preventive, is being formed to research so-called “heritable genome editing,” in which the DNA of embryos would be modified by correcting harmful mutations or installing beneficial genes. The goal would be to prevent disease.
Preventive was founded by the gene-editing scientist Lucas Harrington, who described his plans yesterday in a blog post announcing the venture. Preventive, he said, will not rush to try out the technique but instead will dedicate itself “to rigorously researching whether heritable genome editing can be done safely and responsibly.”
Creating genetically edited humans remains controversial, and the first scientist to do it, in China, was imprisoned for three years. The procedure remains illegal in many countries, including the US, and doubts surround its usefulness as a form of medicine.
Still, as gene-editing technology races forward, the temptation to shape the future of the species may prove irresistible, particularly to entrepreneurs keen to put their stamp on the human condition. In theory, even small genetic tweaks could create people who never get heart disease or Alzheimer’s, and who would pass those traits on to their own offspring.
According to Harrington, if the technique proves safe, it “could become one of the most important health technologies of our time.” He has estimated that editing an embryo would cost only about $5,000 and believes regulations could change in the future.
Preventive is the third US startup this year to say it is pursuing technology to produce gene-edited babies. The first, Bootstrap Bio, based in California, is reportedly seeking seed funding and has an interest in enhancing intelligence. Another, Manhattan Genomics, is also in the formation stage but has not announced funding yet.
As of now, none of these companies have significant staff or facilities, and they largely lack any credibility among mainstream gene-editing scientists. Reached by email, Fyodor Urnov, an expert in gene editing at the University of California, Berkeley, where Harrington studied, said he believes such ventures should not move forward.
Urnov has been a pointed critic of the concept of heritable genome editing, calling it dangerous, misguided, and a distraction from the real benefits of gene editing to treat adults and children.
In his email, Urnov said the launch of still another venture into the area made him want to “howl with pain.”
Harrinton’s venture was incorporated in Delaware in May 2025,under the name Preventive Medicine PBC. As a public-benefit corporation, it is organized to put its public mission above profits. “If our research shows [heritable genome editing] cannot be done safely, that conclusion is equally valuable to the scientific community and society,” Harrington wrote in his post.
Harrington is a cofounder of Mammoth Biosciences, a gene-editing company pursuing drugs for adults, and remains a board member there.
In recent months, Preventive has sought endorsements from leading figures in genome editing, but according to its post, it had secured only one—from Paula Amato, a fertility doctor at Oregon Health Sciences University, who said she had agreed to act as an advisor to the company.
Amato is a member of a US team that has researched embryo editing in the country since 2017, and she has promoted the technology as a way to increase IVF success. That could be the case if editing could correct abnormal embryos, making more available for use in trying to create a pregnancy.
It remains unclear where Preventive’s funding is coming from. Harrington said the $30 million was gathered from “private funders who share our commitment to pursuing this research responsibly.” But he declined to identify those investors other than SciFounders, a venture firm he runs with his personal and business partner Matt Krisiloff, the CEO of the biotech company Conception, which aims to create human eggs from stem cells.
That’s yet another technology that could change reproduction, if it works. Krisiloff is listed as a member of Preventive’s founding team.
The idea of edited babies has received growing attention from figures in the cryptocurrency business. These include Brian Armstrong, the billionaire founder of Coinbase, who has held a series of off-the-record dinners to discuss the technology (which Harrington attended). Armstrong previously argued that the “time is right” for a startup venture in the area.
Will Harborne, a crypto entrepreneur and partner at LongGame Ventures, says he’s “thrilled” to see Preventive launch. If the technology proves safe, he argues, “widespread adoption is inevitable,” calling its use a “societal obligation.”
Harborne’s fund has invested in Herasight, a company that uses genetic tests to rank IVF embryos for future IQ and other traits. That’s another hotly debated technology, but one that has already reached the market, since such testing isn’t strictly regulated. Some have begun to use the term “human enhancement companies” to refer to such ventures.
What’s still lacking is evidence that leading gene-editing specialists support these ventures. Preventive was unsuccessful in establishing a collaboration with at least one key research group, and Urnov says he had harsh words for Manhattan Genomics when that company reached out to him about working together. “I encourage you to stop,” he wrote back. “You will cause zero good and formidable harm.”
Harrington thinks Preventive could change such attitudes, if it shows that it is serious about doing responsible research. “Most scientists I speak with either accept embryo editing as inevitable or are enthusiastic about the potential but hesitate to voice these opinions publicly,” he told MIT Technology Review earlier this year. “Part of being more public about this is to encourage others in the field to discuss this instead of ignoring it.”
2025-10-31 20:10:00
This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology.
Why do so many people think the Fruit of the Loom logo had a cornucopia?
Quick question: Does the Fruit of the Loom logo feature a cornucopia?
Many of us have been wearing the company’s T-shirts for decades, and yet the question of whether there is a woven brown horn of plenty on the logo is surprisingly contentious.
According to a 2022 poll, 55% of Americans believe the logo does include a cornucopia, 25% are unsure, and only 21% are confident that it doesn’t, even though this last group is correct.
There’s a name for what’s happening here: the “Mandela effect,” or collective false memory, so called because a number of people misremember that Nelson Mandela died in prison. Yet while many find it easy to let their unconfirmable beliefs go, some spend years seeking answers—and vindication. Read the full story.
—Amelia Tait
This story is part of MIT Technology Review’s series “The New Conspiracy Age,” on how the present boom in conspiracy theories is reshaping science and technology.
Here’s why we don’t have a cold vaccine. Yet.
For those of us in the Northern Hemisphere, it’s the season of the sniffles. As the weather turns, we’re all spending more time indoors. The kids have been back at school for a couple of months. And cold germs are everywhere.
So why can’t we get a vaccine to protect us against the common cold? Scientists have been working on this for decades, but it turns out that creating a cold vaccine is hard. Really hard. But not impossible. There’s still hope. Read the full story.
—Jessica Hamzelou
This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here.
Inside the archives of the NASA Ames Research Center
At the southern tip of San Francisco Bay, surrounded by the tech giants Google, Apple, and Microsoft, sits the historic NASA Ames Research Center. Its rich history includes a grab bag of fascinating scientific research involving massive wind tunnels, experimental aircraft, supercomputing, astrobiology, and more.
A collection of 5,000 images from NASA Ames’s archives paints a vivid picture of bleeding-edge work at the heart of America’s technology hub. Read the full story.
—Jon Keegan
This story is from the latest print issue of MIT Technology Review magazine, which is full of stories about the body. If you haven’t already, subscribe now to receive future issues once they land.
The must-reads
I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology.
1 The US government is considering banning TP-Link routers
An investigation has raised concerns over the company’s links to China. (WP $)
+ Lawmakers are worried its equipment is vulnerable to hacking. (Bloomberg $)
2 ICE has proposed building a deportation network in Texas
The 24/7 operation would transfer detained immigrants into holding facilities. (Wired $)
+ But US citizens keep being detained, too. (NY Mag $)
+ Inside the operation giving ICE a run for its money. (Slate $)
+ Another effort to track ICE raids was just taken offline. (MIT Technology Review)
3 Ukrainian drone teams are gamifying their war efforts
Officials say rewarding soldiers for successful attacks keeps them motivated. (NYT $)
+ A Peter Thiel-backed drone startup crashed and burned during military trials. (FT $)
+ Meet the radio-obsessed civilian shaping Ukraine’s drone defense. (MIT Technology Review)
4 Meta has denied torrenting porn to train its AI models
Instead, it claims, the downloads were for someone’s “private personal use.” (Ars Technica)
5 Bird flu is getting harder to keep tabs on
The virus has wreaked havoc on the US poultry industry for close to four years. (Vox)
+ A new biosensor can detect bird flu in five minutes. (MIT Technology Review)
6 AI browsers are a cybersecurity nightmare
They’re a hotbed of known—and unknown—risks. (The Verge)
+ I tried OpenAI’s new Atlas browser but I still don’t know what it’s for. (MIT Technology Review)
7 Robots are starting to do more jobs across America
But they’re still proving buggy and expensive to run. (WSJ $)
+ When you might start speaking to robots. (MIT Technology Review)
8 These are the jobs that AI built
From conversation designer to adoption strategist. (WP $)
+ if you fancy landing a job in quantum computing, here’s how to do it. (IEEE Spectrum)
9 Computer vision is getting much, much better 
Their blind spots are rapidly being eliminated. (Knowable Magazine)
10 A lock-cracking YouTuber is being sued by a lockmaking company 
It’s arguing he defamed the company, even though he didn’t say a word during the clip. (Ars Technica)
Quote of the day
“Yes, we’ve been to the Moon before… six times!”
—NASA’s acting administrator Sean Duffy reacts to Kim Kardashian’s belief that man has never set foot on the moon, the Guardian reports.
One more thing
What happens when you donate your body to science
Rebecca George doesn’t mind the vultures that complain from the trees that surround the Western Carolina University body farm. Her arrival has interrupted their breakfast. George studies human decomposition, and part of decomposing is becoming food. Scavengers are welcome.
In the US, about 20,000 people or their families donate their bodies to scientific research and education each year. Whatever the reason, the decision becomes a gift. Western Carolina’s FOREST is among the places where watchful caretakers know that the dead and the living are deeply connected, and the way you treat the first reflects how you treat the second. Read the full story.
—Abby Ohlheiser
We can still have nice things
A place for comfort, fun and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line or skeet ’em at me.)
+ Zoo animals across the world are getting into the Halloween spirit with some tasty pumpkins.
+ If you’re stuck for something suitably spooky to watch tonight, this list is a great place to start.
+ New York’s historic Morris-Jumel Mansion is seriously beautiful—and seriously haunted.
+ Salem’s Lucipurr is on the prowl!
2025-10-31 17:00:00
For those of us in the Northern Hemisphere, it’s the season of the sniffles. As the weather turns, we’re all spending more time indoors. The kids have been back at school for a couple of months. And cold germs are everywhere.
My youngest started school this year, and along with artwork and seedlings, she has also been bringing home lots of lovely bugs to share with the rest of her family. As she coughed directly into my face for what felt like the hundredth time, I started to wonder if there was anything I could do to stop this endless cycle of winter illnesses. We all got our flu jabs a month ago. Why couldn’t we get a vaccine to protect us against the common cold, too?
Scientists have been working on this for decades. It turns out that creating a cold vaccine is hard. Really hard.
But not impossible. There’s still hope. Let me explain.
Technically, colds are infections that affect your nose and throat, causing symptoms like sneezing, coughing, and generally feeling like garbage. Unlike some other infections,—covid-19, for example—they aren’t defined by the specific virus that causes them.
That’s because there are a lot of viruses that cause colds, including rhinoviruses, adenoviruses, and even seasonal coronaviruses (they don’t all cause covid!). Within those virus families, there are many different variants.
Take rhinoviruses, for example. These viruses are thought to be behind most colds. They’re human viruses—over the course of evolution, they have become perfectly adapted to infecting us, rapidly multiplying in our noses and airways to make us sick. There are around 180 rhinovirus variants, says Gary McLean, a molecular immunologist at Imperial College London in the UK.
Once you factor in the other cold-causing viruses, there are around 280 variants all told. That’s 280 suspects behind the cough that my daughter sprayed into my face. It’s going to be really hard to make a vaccine that will offer protection against all of them.
The second challenge lies in the prevalence of those variants.
Scientists tailor flu and covid vaccines to whatever strain happens to be circulating. Months before flu season starts, the World Health Organization advises countries on which strains their vaccines should protect against. Early recommendations for the Northern Hemisphere can be based on which strains seem to be dominant in the Southern Hemisphere, and vice versa.
That approach wouldn’t work for the common cold, because all those hundreds of variants are circulating all the time, says McLean.
That’s not to say that people haven’t tried to make a cold vaccine. There was a flurry of interest in the 1960s and ’70s, when scientists made valiant efforts to develop vaccines for the common cold. Sadly, they all failed. And we haven’t made much progress since then.
In 2022, a team of researchers reviewed all the research that had been published up to that year. They only identified one clinical trial—and it was conducted back in 1965.
Interest has certainly died down since then, too. Some question whether a cold vaccine is even worth the effort. After all, most colds don’t require much in the way of treatment and don’t last more than a week or two. There are many, many more dangerous viruses out there we could be focusing on.
And while cold viruses do mutate and evolve, no one really expects them to cause the next pandemic, says McLean. They’ve evolved to cause mild disease in humans—something they’ve been doing successfully for a long, long time. Flu viruses—which can cause serious illness, disability, or even death—pose a much bigger risk, so they probably deserve more attention.
But colds are still irritating, disruptive, and potentially harmful. Rhinoviruses are considered to be the leading cause of human infectious disease. They can cause pneumonia in children and older adults. And once you add up doctor visits, medication, and missed work, the economic cost of colds is pretty hefty: a 2003 study put it at $40 billion per year for the US alone.
So it’s reassuring that we needn’t abandon all hope: Some scientists are making progress! McLean and his colleagues are working on ways to prepare the immune systems of people with asthma and lung diseases to potentially protect them from cold viruses. And a team at Emory University has developed a vaccine that appears to protect monkeys from around a third of rhinoviruses.
There’s still a long way to go. Don’t expect a cold vaccine to materialize in the next five years, at least. “We’re not quite there yet,” says Michael Boeckh, an infectious-disease researcher at Fred Hutch Cancer Center in Seattle, Washington. “But will it at some point happen? Possibly.”
At the end of our Zoom call, perhaps after reading the disappointed expression on my sniffling, cold-riddled face (yes, I did end up catching my daughter’s cold), McLean told me he hoped he was “positive enough.” He admitted that he used to be more optimistic about a cold vaccine. But he hasn’t given up hope. He’s even running a trial of a potential new vaccine in people, although he wouldn’t reveal the details.
“It could be done,” he said.
This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here.
2025-10-30 21:10:00
This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology.
Introducing: the new conspiracy age
Everything is a conspiracy theory now. Conspiracists are all over the White House, turning fringe ideas into dangerous policy. America’s institutions are crumbling under the weight of deep suspicion and the lasting effects of covid isolation. Online echo chambers are getting harder to escape, and generative AI is altering the fabric of truth. A mix of technology and politics has given an unprecedented boost to once-fringe ideas—but they are pretty much the same fantasies that have been spreading for hundreds of years.
MIT Technology Review helps break down how this moment is changing science and technology—and how we can make it through. We’re thrilled to present The New Conspiracy Age, a new series digging into how the present boom in conspiracy theories is reshaping science and technology.
To kick us off, check out Dorian Lynskey’s fascinating piece explaining why it’s never been easier to be a conspiracy theorist. And stay tuned—we’ll be showcasing a different story from the package each day in the next few editions of The Download!
Four thoughts from Bill Gates on climate tech
Bill Gates doesn’t shy away or pretend modesty when it comes to his stature in the climate world today. “Well, who’s the biggest funder of climate innovation companies?” he asked a handful of journalists at a media roundtable event last week. “If there’s someone else, I’ve never met them.”
The former Microsoft CEO has spent the last decade investing in climate technology through Breakthrough Energy, which he founded in 2015. Ahead of the UN climate meetings kicking off next week, Gates published a memo outlining what he thinks activists and negotiators should focus on and how he’s thinking about the state of climate tech right now. Here’s what he had to say.
—Casey Crownhart
This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here.
The must-reads
I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology.
1 US Homeland Security shared false videos of immigration operations
They claimed to show recent operations but used footage that was old, or recorded thousands of miles away. (WP $)
+ ICE is scanning pedestrians’ faces to verify their citizenship. (404 Media)
2 Character.AI is banning under-18s from talking to its virtual companions
It’s currently facing several lawsuits from families who claim its chatbots have harmed their children. (NYT $)
+ The company says it’s introducing age assurance functionality. (FT $)
+ Teenage boys are using chatbots to roleplay as girlfriends. (The Guardian)
+ The looming crackdown on AI companionship. (MIT Technology Review)
3 Trump directed the Pentagon to resume nuclear weapons testing
America hasn’t conducted such tests for more than 30 years. (BBC)
+ The US President made multiple incorrect assertions in his statement. (The Verge)
+ He doesn’t seem to even know why he wants to resume the tests himself. (The Atlantic $)
4 A Google DeepMind AI model accurately predicted Hurricane Melissa’s severity
It’s the first time the US National Hurricane Center has deployed it. (Nature $)
+ Here’s how to actually help the people affected by its extensive damage. (Vox)
+ Google DeepMind’s new AI model is the best yet at weather forecasting. (MIT Technology Review)
5 A major record label has signed a deal with AI music firm Udio
Universal Music Group had previously sued it for copyright infringement. (WSJ $)
+ AI is coming for music, too. (MIT Technology Review)
6 Are companies using AI as a fig leaf to lay workers off?
It’s sure starting to look that way. (NBC News)
+ Big Tech is going to keep spending billions on AI, regardless. (WP $)
7 Meta Ray-Ban users are filming themselves in massage parlors
They’re harassing workers, who appear unaware they’re being recorded. (404 Media)
+ China’s smart glasses makers are keen to capture the market. (FT $)
8 Just three countries dominate the world’s space launches
What will it take to get some other nations in the mix? (Rest of World)
9 Why you shouldn’t hire an AI agent
Their freelancing capabilities are… limited. (Wired $)
+ The people paid to train AI are outsourcing their work… to AI. (MIT Technology Review)
10 This app’s AI-generated podcasting dog videos are a big hit 
But DogPack wants to make sure viewers know it’s not trying to trick them. (Insider $)
Quote of the day
“Zuck spent five years and $70 billion dollars to build a business that loses $4.4 billion/year to create only $470 million in revenue. So bad you can’t give it away, I guess.”
—Greg Linden, a former data scientist at Microsoft, pokes fun at Meta’s beleaguered Reality Labs’ earnings in a post on Bluesky.
One more thing
How scientists want to make you young again
A little over 15 years ago, scientists at Kyoto University in Japan made a remarkable discovery. When they added just four proteins to a skin cell and waited about two weeks, some of the cells underwent an unexpected and astounding transformation: they became young again. They turned into stem cells almost identical to the kind found in a days-old embryo, just beginning life’s journey.
At least in a petri dish, researchers using the procedure can take withered skin cells from a 101-year-old and rewind them so they act as if they’d never aged at all.
Now, after more than a decade of studying and tweaking so-called cellular reprogramming, a number of biotech companies and research labs say they have tantalizing hints that the process could be the gateway to an unprecedented new technology for age reversal. Read the full story.
—Antonio Regalado
We can still have nice things
A place for comfort, fun and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line or skeet ’em at me.)
+ 2025’s Comedy Wildlife Award winners and finalists are classics of the genre.
+ This Instagram account shared the same video of Thomas the Tank Engine’s daring railway stunts every day, and I think that’s just beautiful.
+ How to get more of that elusive deep sleep.
+ Here’s an interesting take on why we still find dragons so fascinating 
2025-10-30 20:00:00
2025-10-30 19:00:00
Bill Gates doesn’t shy away or pretend modesty when it comes to his stature in the climate world today. “Well, who’s the biggest funder of climate innovation companies?” he asked a handful of journalists at a media roundtable event last week. “If there’s someone else, I’ve never met them.”
The former Microsoft CEO has spent the last decade investing in climate technology through Breakthrough Energy, which he founded in 2015. Ahead of the UN climate meetings kicking off next week, Gates published a memo outlining what he thinks activists and negotiators should focus on and how he’s thinking about the state of climate tech right now. Let’s get into it.
One of the central points Gates made in his new memo is that he thinks the world is too focused on near-term emissions goals and national emissions reporting.
So in parallel with the national accounting structure for emissions, Gates argues, we should have high-level climate discussions at events like the UN climate conference. Those discussions should take a global view on how to reduce emissions in key sectors like energy and heavy industry.
“The way everybody makes steel, it’s the same. The way everybody makes cement, it’s the same. The way we make fertilizer, it’s all the same,” he says.
As he noted in one recent essay for MIT Technology Review, he sees innovation as the key to cutting the cost of clean versions of energy, cement, vehicles, and so on. And once products get cheaper, they can see wider adoption.
“In the long run, probably either fission or fusion will be the cheapest way to make electricity,” he says. (It should be noted that, as with most climate technologies, Gates has investments in both fission and fusion companies through Breakthrough Energy Ventures, so he has a vested interest here.)
He acknowledges, though, that reactors likely won’t come online quickly enough to meet rising electricity demand in the US: “I wish I could deliver nuclear fusion, like, three years earlier than I can.”
He also spoke to China’s leadership in both nuclear fission and fusion energy. “The amount of money they’re putting [into] fusion is more than the rest of the world put together times two. I mean, it’s not guaranteed to work. But name your favorite fusion approach here in the US—there’s a Chinese project.”
I had my colleague James Temple’s recent story on what’s next for carbon removal at the top of my mind, so I asked Gates if he saw carbon credits or carbon removal as part of the problematic near-term thinking he wrote about in the memo.
Gates buys offsets to cancel out his own personal emissions, to the tune of about $9 million a year, he said at the roundtable, but doesn’t expect many of those offsets to make a significant dent in climate progress on a broader scale: “That stuff, most of those technologies, are a complete dead end. They don’t get you cheap enough to be meaningful.
“Carbon sequestration at $400, $200, $100, can never be a meaningful part of this game. If you have a technology that starts at $400 and can get to $4, then hallelujah, let’s go. I haven’t seen that one. There are some now that look like they can get to $40 or $50, and that can play somewhat of a role.”
During the discussion, I started a tally in the corner of my notebook, adding a tick every time Gates mentioned AI. Over the course of about an hour, I got to six tally marks, and I definitely missed making a few.
Gates acknowledged that AI is going to add electricity demand, a challenge for a US grid that hasn’t seen net demand go up for decades. But so too will electric cars and heat pumps.
I was surprised at just how positively he spoke about AI’s potential, though:
“AI will accelerate every innovation pipeline you can name: cancer, Alzheimer’s, catalysts in material science, you name it. And we’re all trying to figure out what that means. That is the biggest change agent in the world today, moving at a pace that is very, very rapid … every breakthrough energy company will be able to move faster because of using those tools, some very dramatically.”
I’ll add that, as I’ve noted here before, I’m skeptical of big claims about AI’s potential to be a silver bullet across industries, including climate tech. (If you missed it, check out this story about AI and the grid from earlier this year.)
This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here.
