Origin Genomics Founder Argues Gene-Editing Embryos Is a ‘Moral Imperative’

Although the practice of editing human embryos remains fraught with controversy and significant risk, Cathy Tie, founder of the biotech firm Origin Genomics, contends that pursuing gene-edited babies is not merely an urgent scientific goal but a “moral imperative.” Her advocacy comes more than eight years after Chinese scientist He Jiankui announced the creation of the world’s first gene-edited babies, an experiment that was universally condemned as reckless and premature and resulted in his imprisonment.

Tie, 30, launched Origin Genomics in March with the explicit objective of introducing gene-edited embryos into in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinics. In a recent commentary published in the journal Trends in Genetics, she calls for public funding and the establishment of new regulatory frameworks to advance the technology toward clinical application.

Germ-line gene editing involves altering reproductive cells, such as embryos, meaning any modifications would be inherited by future generations. Proponents argue this could permanently correct devastating genetic mutations. However, critics highlight the danger of “off-target effects,” where unintended DNA changes could introduce new health risks passed down the lineage. Consequently, dozens of nations have prohibited the use of gene-edited embryos for pregnancy.

Hank Greely, director of the Center for Law and the Biosciences at Stanford University, emphasized the historical dangers of rushing human trials. “There are cautionary tales of first human trials where there was really no flashing red light, and people died,” Greely said, underscoring the need for rigorous evidence regarding safety before attempting human pregnancies.

Opponents also point out that existing technologies already allow prospective parents to identify disease-free embryos through IVF combined with genetic screening. Greely noted that gene editing might only benefit a “fraction of a fraction of a fraction” of people, as screening tools address most cases.

However, the current IVF process is inefficient. Eggs frequently fail to fertilize, and many viable embryos halt development or possess chromosomal abnormalities. For individuals carrying genetic variants, additional screening reduces the pool of usable embryos further. Ian Watts and Cheyenne Ziegler, for instance, underwent three rounds of IVF hoping to have children without Watts’ Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease, a degenerative neurological condition affecting mobility. While they produced eight chromosomally normal embryos, only three lacked the genetic variant, which Watts believes is insufficient to fulfill their dream of having three or four children.

“The choices currently available are either not having children or doing lots of IVF,” said Watts, a 36-year-old engineer from Long Beach, California. He argues that gene editing could provide more opportunities for families at risk of passing on hereditary diseases, particularly in rare cases where every embryo would inherit a disease-causing mutation from both parents.

Tie, a former Thiel fellow who has previously described herself as “biotech Barbie,” rejects the notion that the goal is simply to exclude affected embryos. “We’re here to treat these diseases, not just exclude embryos and call it a day,” she stated.

The technological landscape has shifted significantly since the invention of CRISPR over a decade ago. In June, researchers at Columbia University reported using a technique called base editing to modify early-stage human embryos with high accuracy. Tie cites this development in her commentary as proof that precision editing is now within reach, strengthening her case for moving forward with clinical applications.