According to MIT Technology Review, a West Coast biotech entrepreneur has secured $30 million to form a public-benefit company called Preventive, marking the largest known investment into the controversial field of heritable genome editing. The company will research modifying embryo DNA by correcting harmful mutations or installing beneficial genes with the goal of preventing disease. This development comes despite the technology remaining highly contentious, with the first scientist to create gene-edited babies in China being imprisoned for three years, and the procedure remaining illegal in many countries including the US. Meanwhile, startup Still Bright is tackling copper industry pollution using water-based reactions based on battery chemistry technology to purify copper through less polluting methods than traditional smelting. These parallel developments in biotechnology and materials science signal shifting attitudes toward once-unthinkable technological interventions.
Sponsored content — provided for informational and promotional purposes.
The Gene Editing Regulatory Crossroads
The $30 million investment in Preventive represents a critical inflection point for heritable genome editing that goes far beyond the immediate scientific implications. What we’re witnessing is the early formation of a regulatory and ethical battleground that will likely define biotechnology for the next decade. Unlike therapeutic gene editing, which targets somatic cells and affects only the individual patient, germline editing creates permanent changes that pass to future generations. This distinction creates unprecedented regulatory challenges that current frameworks are completely unprepared to handle. The timing is particularly significant given that we’re only five years removed from the He Jiankui controversy that led to international condemnation and criminal prosecution in China.
The Coming Copper Supply Chain Revolution
Still Bright’s approach to copper purification represents more than just an environmental improvement—it signals a fundamental rethinking of how we’ll meet the massive copper demand driven by the energy transition. Traditional copper smelting accounts for approximately 2% of global sulfur dioxide emissions and consumes enormous amounts of energy and water. The battery chemistry-inspired water-based process could potentially decentralize copper production, allowing smaller-scale operations closer to mining sites or even urban recycling centers. This aligns with broader trends toward distributed manufacturing and could significantly reduce the carbon footprint of copper-intensive technologies like electric vehicles and renewable energy infrastructure. The timing couldn’t be more critical, with projections showing copper demand for clean energy technologies potentially tripling by 2040.
Parallel Innovation Patterns Across Industries
What’s particularly fascinating about these simultaneous developments is how they reflect similar innovation patterns across completely different sectors. Both represent attempts to solve fundamental limitations in existing systems through technological breakthroughs that were previously considered either too risky or scientifically impossible. The gene editing investment shows private capital moving into areas where public funding remains constrained by ethical concerns, while the copper purification technology demonstrates how knowledge transfer from one field (battery chemistry) can revolutionize another (metals processing). This pattern of cross-pollination between traditionally separate technological domains will likely accelerate as complex global challenges require increasingly interdisciplinary solutions.
The Emerging Regulatory and Market Landscape
Looking ahead 12-24 months, we can expect significant regulatory developments in both domains. For heritable genome editing, the massive private investment will likely trigger renewed international discussions about governance frameworks, potentially leading to more nuanced regulations that distinguish between different types of genetic modifications. The copper purification technology faces a different set of challenges—primarily scaling from laboratory demonstration to industrial implementation while competing with established smelting infrastructure. Both ventures will need to navigate complex stakeholder landscapes including regulators, investors, environmental groups, and public opinion. The success or failure of these early movers will set important precedents for how we approach other emerging technologies at the intersection of human enhancement and environmental sustainability.