A New York City biotechnology startup is testing experimental gene-editing tools on cells from donated human embryos, seeking evidence that inherited disease mutations could someday be corrected before birth. Using gene-edited embryos to start pregnancies is not permitted in the United States, and the work has drawn warnings from scientists and bioethicists about safety, oversight and the potential for broader genetic enhancement. Origin Genomics, led by founder and CEO Cathy Tie, says it is evaluating which gene-editing tools might repair mutations linked to conditions including cystic fibrosis, Huntington’s disease and inherited cancers. The company is also testing its tools on other types of cells carrying disease-associated mutations. Tie describes the cell work as an early step, not proof that embryo editing is safe for reproduction. The company’s New York lab location has not been made public. Couples have donated embryos carrying disease-causing mutations for research, and Origin says it is proceeding slowly with independent oversight. Tie argues that research could eventually help families avoid passing serious inherited conditions to their children. But altering an embryo’s DNA could affect not only a future child but also descendants who inherit the change. Scientists have warned that unintended edits or other errors could have lasting consequences. In 2018, Chinese scientist He Jiankui shocked the scientific community by announcing that he had used CRISPR to create genetically modified babies. He was later sentenced to prison in China. Newer approaches, including base and prime editing, may offer greater precision than earlier tools, but many researchers say it remains too soon to use edited embryos to produce children. Robin Lovell-Badge, a biologist at London’s Francis Crick Institute, has warned that moving too quickly could create false hope and damage public trust in the field. Critics also fear that allowing embryo editing for disease prevention could help normalize attempts to select or alter traits such as height or intelligence. Katie Hasson of the Center for Genetics and Society has raised concerns about the ambitions of some investors in the sector. Other researchers worry that private companies may be pursuing human genetic enhancement alongside disease prevention. The federal restrictions are a central hurdle. Congress has barred the Food and Drug Administration from considering applications for clinical trials involving heritable genetic modification, a barrier Tie hopes lawmakers will eventually reconsider if the company can produce convincing safety evidence. Tie says Origin is focused on preventing disease, not enhancing traits, and that safety must come first. The debate is personal for Nicole and Asaf Ezra, a couple who hope to have children without passing on a mutation that causes familial adenomatous polyposis, a condition that can lead to precancerous growths in the digestive system. Nicole, 38, has had most of her large intestine removed and undergoes regular procedures to find and remove polyps. Several relatives, including her grandfather and mother, had colorectal cancer. After rounds of IVF, the couple had one embryo without the mutation, but the pregnancy ended in miscarriage. They have donated three affected embryos to Origin’s research and invested in the company. They say they hope future advances might give families like theirs another option. Their experience highlights the potential appeal of the research as well as the stakes: IVF and embryo screening can already help some families avoid passing on mutations, but not every attempt results in an unaffected embryo or a successful pregnancy. Whether editing could safely provide another path remains unanswered. Tie says the company wants clinicians, regulators, bioethicists and patient advocates involved in deciding how the technology should be governed. For now, Origin’s experiments are aimed at producing evidence in laboratory cells and embryos—not at creating gene-edited pregnancies.