Jan 17 2026
Three technologies that will shape biotech in 2026

Earlier this week, MIT Technology Review published its annual list of Ten Breakthrough Technologies. As always, it features technologies that made the news last year, and which—for better or worse—stand to make waves in the coming years. They’re the technologies you should really be paying attention to.

This year’s list includes tech that’s set to transform the energy industry, artificial intelligence, space travel—and of course biotech and health. Our breakthrough biotechnologies for 2026 involve editing a baby’s genes and, separately, resurrecting genes from ancient species. We also included a controversial technology that offers parents the chance to screen their embryos for characteristics like height and intelligence. Here’s the story behind our biotech choices.

A base-edited baby!

In August 2024, KJ Muldoon was born with a rare genetic disorder that allowed toxic ammonia to build up in his blood. The disease can be fatal, and KJ was at risk of developing neurological disorders. At the time, his best bet for survival involved waiting for a liver transplant.

Then he was offered an experimental gene therapy—a personalized “base editing” treatment designed to correct the specific genetic “misspellings” responsible for his disease. It seems to have worked! Three doses later, KJ is doing well. He took his first steps in December, shortly before spending his first Christmas at home.

KJ’s story is hugely encouraging. The team behind his treatment is planning a clinical trial for infants with similar disorders caused by different genetic mutations. The team members hope to win regulatory approval on the back of a small trial—a move that could make the expensive treatment (KJ’s cost around $1 million) more accessible, potentially within a few years.

Others are getting in on the action, too. Fyodor Urnov, a gene-editing scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, assisted the team that developed KJ’s treatment. He recently cofounded Aurora Therapeutics, a startup that hopes to develop gene-editing drugs for another disorder called phenylketonuria (PKU). The goal is to obtain regulatory approval for a single drug that can then be adjusted or personalized for individuals without having to go through more clinical trials.

US regulators seem to be amenable to the idea and have described a potential approval pathway for such “bespoke, personalized therapies.” Watch this space.

Gene resurrection

It was a big year for Colossal Biosciences, the biotech company hoping to “de-extinct” animals like the woolly mammoth and the dodo. In March, the company created what it called “woolly mice”—rodents with furry coats and curly whiskers akin to those of woolly mammoths.

The company made an even more dramatic claim the following month, when it announced it had created three dire wolves. These striking snow-white animals were created by making 20 genetic changes to the DNA of gray wolves based on genetic research on ancient dire wolf bones, the company said at the time.

Whether these animals can really be called dire wolves is debatable, to say the least. But the technology behind their creation is undeniably fascinating. We’re talking about the extraction and analysis of ancient DNA, which can then be introduced into cells from other, modern-day species.

Analysis of ancient DNA can reveal all sorts of fascinating insights into human ancestors and other animals. And cloning, another genetic tool used here, has applications not only in attempts to re-create dead pets but also in wildlife conservation efforts. Read more here.

Embryo scoring

IVF involves creating embryos in a lab and, typically, “scoring” them on their likelihood of successful growth before they are transferred to a person’s uterus. So far, so uncontroversial.

Recently, embryo scoring has evolved. Labs can pinch off a couple of cells from an embryo, look at its DNA, and screen for some genetic diseases. That list of diseases is increasing. And now some companies are taking things even further, offering prospective parents the opportunity to select embryos for features like height, eye color, and even IQ.

This is controversial for lots of reasons. For a start, there are many, many factors that contribute to complex traits like IQ (a score that doesn’t capture all aspects of intelligence at any rate). We don’t have a perfect understanding of those factors, or how selecting for one trait might influence another.

Some critics warn of eugenics. And others note that whichever embryo you end up choosing, you can’t control exactly how your baby will turn out (and why should you?!). Still, that hasn’t stopped Nucleus, one of the companies offering these services, from inviting potential customers to have their “best baby.” Read more here.

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.

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments
Jan 10 2026
A new CRISPR startup is betting regulators will ease up on gene-editing

Here at MIT Technology Review we’ve been writing about the gene-editing technology CRISPR since 2013, calling it the biggest biotech breakthrough of the century. Yet so far, there’s been only one gene-editing drug approved. It’s been used commercially on only about 40 patients, all with sickle-cell disease.

It’s becoming clear that the impact of CRISPR isn’t as big as we all hoped. In fact, there’s a pall of discouragement over the entire field—with some journalists saying the gene-editing revolution has “lost its mojo.”

So what will it take for CRISPR to help more people? A new startup says the answer could be an “umbrella approach” to testing and commercializing treatments. Aurora Therapeutics, which has $16 million from Menlo Ventures and counts CRISPR co-inventor Jennifer Doudna as an advisor, essentially hopes to win approval for gene-editing drugs that can be slightly adjusted, or personalized, without requiring costly new trials or approvals for every new version.

The need to change regulations around gene-editing treatments was endorsed in November by the head of the US Food and Drug Administration, Martin Makary, who said the agency would open a “new” regulatory pathway for “bespoke, personalized therapies” that can’t easily be tested in conventional ways. 

Aurora’s first target, the rare inherited disease phenylketonuria, also known as PKU, is a case in point. People with PKU lack a working version of an enzyme needed to use up the amino acid phenylalanine, a component of pretty much all meat and protein. If the amino acid builds up, it causes brain damage. So patients usually go on an onerous “diet for life” of special formula drinks and vegetables.

In theory, gene editing can fix PKU. In mice, scientists have already restored the gene for the enzyme by rewriting DNA in liver cells, which both make the enzyme and are some of the easiest to reach with a gene-editing drug. The problem is that in human patients, many different mutations can affect the critical gene. According to Cory Harding, a researcher at Oregon Health Sciences University, scientists know about 1,600 different DNA mutations that cause PKU.

There’s no way anyone will develop 1,600 different gene-editing drugs. Instead, Aurora’s goal is to eventually win approval for a single gene editor that, with minor adjustments, could be used to correct several of the most common mutations, including one that’s responsible for about 10% of the estimated 20,000 PKU cases in the US.

“We can’t have a separate clinical trial for each mutation,” says Edward Kaye, the CEO of Aurora. “The way the FDA approves gene editing has to change, and I think they’ve been very understanding that is the case.”

A gene editor is a special protein that can zero in on a specific location in the genome and change it. To prepare one, Aurora will put genetic code for the editor into a nanoparticle along with a targeting molecule. In total, it will involve about 5,000 gene letters. But only 20 of them need to change in order to redirect the treatment to repair a different mutation.

“Over 99% of the drug stays the same,” says Johnny Hu, a partner at Menlo Ventures, which put up the funding for the startup.

The new company came together after Hu met over pizza with Fyodor Urnov, an outspoken gene-editing scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, who is Aurora’s cofounder and sits on its board.

In 2022, Urnov had written a New York Times editorial bemoaning the “chasm” between what editing technology can do and the “legal, financial, and organizational” realities preventing researchers from curing people.

“I went to Fyodor and said, ‘Hey, we’re getting all these great results in the clinic with CRISPR, but why hasn’t it scaled?” says Hu. Part of the reason is that most gene-editing companies are chasing the same few conditions, such as sickle-cell, where (as luck would have it) a single edit works for all patients. But that leaves around 400 million people who have 7,000 other inherited conditions without much hope to get their DNA fixed, Urnov estimated in his editorial.

Then, last May, came the dramatic demonstration of the first fully “personalized” gene-editing treatment. A team in Philadelphia, assisted by Urnov and others, succeeded in correcting the DNA of a baby, named KJ Muldoon, who had an entirely unique mutation that caused a metabolic disease. Though it didn’t target PKU, the project showed that gene editing could theoretically fix some inherited diseases “on demand.” 

It also underscored a big problem. Treating a single child required a large team and cost millions in time, effort, and materials—all to create a drug that would never be used again. 

That’s exactly the sort of situation the new “umbrella” trials are supposed to address. Kiran Musunuru, who co-led the team at the University of Pennsylvania, says he’s been in discussions with the FDA to open a study of bespoke gene editors this year focusing on diseases of the type Baby KJ had, called urea cycle disorders. Each time a new patient appears, he says, they’ll try to quickly put together a variant of their gene-editing drug that’s tuned to fix that child’s particular genetic problem.

Musunuru, who isn’t involved with Aurora, does not think the company’s plans for PKU count as fully personalized editors. “These corporate PKU efforts have nothing whatsoever to do with Baby KJ,” he says. He says his center continues to focus on mutations “so ultra-rare that we don’t see any scenario where a for-profit gene-editing company would find that indication to be commercially viable.”

Instead, what’s occurring in PKU, says Musunuru, is that researchers have realized they can assemble “a bunch” of the most frequent mutations “into a large enough group of patients to make a platform PKU therapy commercially viable.” 

While that would still leave out many patients with extra-rare gene errors, Musunuru says any gene-editing treatment at all would still be “a big improvement over the status quo, which  is zero genetic therapies for PKU.”

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments
Jan 9 2026
America’s new dietary guidelines ignore decades of scientific research

The new year has barely begun, but the first days of 2026 have brought big news for health. On Monday, the US’s federal health agency upended its recommendations for routine childhood vaccinations—a move that health associations worry puts children at unnecessary risk of preventable disease.

There was more news from the federal government on Wednesday, when health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his colleagues at the Departments of Health and Human Services and Agriculture unveiled new dietary guidelines for Americans. And they are causing a bit of a stir.

That’s partly because they recommend products like red meat, butter, and beef tallow—foods that have been linked to cardiovascular disease, and that nutrition experts have been recommending people limit in their diets.

These guidelines are a big deal—they influence food assistance programs and school lunches, for example. So this week let’s look at the good, the bad, and the ugly advice being dished up to Americans by their government.

The government dietary guidelines have been around since the 1980s. They are updated every five years, in a process that typically involves a team of nutrition scientists who have combed over scientific research for years. That team will first publish its findings in a scientific report, and, around a year later, the finalized Dietary Guidelines for Americans are published.

The last guidelines covered the period 2020 to 2025, and new guidelines were expected in the summer of 2025. Work had already been underway for years; the scientific report intended to inform them was published back in 2024. But the publication of the guidelines was delayed by last year’s government shutdown, Kennedy said last year. They were finally published yesterday.

Nutrition experts had been waiting with bated breath. Nutrition science has evolved slightly over the last five years, and some were expecting to see new recommendations. Research now suggests, for example, that there is no “safe” level of alcohol consumption.

We are also beginning to learn more about health risks associated with some ultraprocessed foods (although we still don’t have a good understanding of what they might be, or what even counts as “ultraprocessed”.) And some scientists were expecting to see the new guidelines factor in environmental sustainability, says Gabby Headrick, the associate director of food and nutrition policy at George Washington University’s Institute for Food Safety & Nutrition Security in Washington DC.

They didn’t.

Many of the recommendations are sensible. The guidelines recommend a diet rich in whole foods, particularly fresh fruits and vegetables. They recommend avoiding highly processed foods and added sugars. They also highlight the importance of dietary protein, whole grains, and “healthy” fats.

But not all of them are, says Headrick. The guidelines open with a “new pyramid” of foods. This inverted triangle is topped with “protein, dairy, and healthy fats” on one side and “vegetables and fruits” on the other.

USDA

There are a few problems with this image. For starters, its shape—nutrition scientists have long moved on from the food pyramids of the 1990s, says Headrick. They’re confusing and make it difficult for people to understand what the contents of their plate should look like. That’s why scientists now use an image of a plate to depict a healthy diet.

“We’ve been using MyPlate to describe the dietary guidelines in a very consumer-friendly, nutrition-education-friendly way for over the last decade now,” says Headrick. (The UK’s National Health Service takes a similar approach.)

And then there’s the content of that food pyramid. It puts a significant focus on meat and whole-fat dairy produce. The top left image—the one most viewers will probably see first—is of a steak. Smack in the middle of the pyramid is a stick of butter. That’s new. And it’s not a good thing.

While both red meat and whole-fat dairy can certainly form part of a healthy diet, nutrition scientists have long been recommending that most people try to limit their consumption of these foods. Both can be high in saturated fat, which can increase the risk of cardiovascular disease—the leading cause of death in the US. In 2015, on the basis of limited evidence, the World Health Organization classified red meat as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” 

Also concerning is the document’s definition of “healthy fats,” which includes butter and beef tallow (a MAHA favorite). Neither food is generally considered to be as healthy as olive oil, for example. While olive oil contains around two grams of saturated fat per tablespoon, a tablespoon of beef tallow has around six grams of saturated fat, and the same amount of butter contains around seven grams of saturated fat, says Headrick.

“I think these are pretty harmful dietary recommendations to be making when we have established that those specific foods likely do not have health-promoting benefits,” she adds.

Red meat is not exactly a sustainable food, and neither are dairy products. And the advice on alcohol is relatively vague, recommending that people “consume less alcohol for better overall health” (which might leave you wondering: Less than what?).

There are other questionable recommendations in the guidelines. Americans are advised to include more protein in their diets—at levels between 1.2 and 1.6 grams daily per kilo of body weight, 50% to 100% more than recommended in previous guidelines. There’s a risk that increasing protein consumption to such levels could raise a person’s intake of both calories and saturated fats to unhealthy levels, says José Ordovás, a senior nutrition scientist at Tufts University. “I would err on the low side,” he says.

Some nutrition scientists are questioning why these changes have been made. It’s not as though the new recommendations were in the 2024 scientific report. And the evidence on red meat and saturated fat hasn’t changed, says Headrick.

In reporting this piece, I contacted many contributors to the previous guidelines, and some who had led research for 2024’s scientific report. None of them agreed to comment on the new guidelines on the record. Some seemed disgruntled. One merely told me that the process by which the new guidelines had been created was “opaque.”

“These people invested a lot of their time, and they did a thorough job [over] a couple of years, identifying [relevant scientific studies],” says Ordovás. “I’m not surprised that when they see that [their] work was ignored and replaced with something [put together] quickly, that they feel a little bit disappointed,” he says.

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.

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments
Jan 3 2026
Job titles of the future: Head-transplant surgeon

The Italian neurosurgeon Sergio Canavero has been preparing for a surgery that might never happen. His idea? Swap a sick person’s head—or perhaps just the brain—onto a younger, healthier body.

Canavero caused a stir in 2017 when he announced that a team he advised in China had exchanged heads between two corpses. But he never convinced skeptics that his technique could succeed—or to believe his claim that a procedure on a live person was imminent. The Chicago Tribune labeled him the “P.T. Barnum of transplantation.”

Canavero withdrew from the spotlight. But the idea of head transplants isn’t going away. Instead, he says, the concept has recently been getting a fresh look from life-extension enthusiasts and stealth Silicon Valley startups.

Career path

It’s been rocky. After he began publishing his surgical ideas a decade ago, Canavero says, he got his “pink slip” from the Molinette Hospital in Turin, where he’d spent 22 years on staff. “I’m an out-of-the-establishment guy. So that has made things harder, I have to say,” he says.  

Why he persists

No other solution to aging is on the horizon. “It’s become absolutely clear over the past years that the idea of some incredible tech to rejuvenate elderly people—­happening in some secret lab, like Google—is really going nowhere,” he says. “You have to go for the whole shebang.”

The whole shebang?

He means getting a new body, not just one new organ. Canavero has an easy mastery of English idioms and an unexpected Southern twang. He says that’s due to a fascination with American comics as a child. “For me, learning the language of my heroes was paramount,” he says. “So I can shoot the breeze.” 

Cloned bodies

Canavero is now an independent investigator and has advised entrepreneurs who want to create brainless human clones as a source of DNA-matched organs that wouldn’t get rejected by a recipient’s immune system. “I can tell you there are guys from top universities involved,” he says.

What’s next

Combining the necessary technologies, like reliably precise surgical robots and artificial wombs to grow the clones, is going to be complex and very, very expensive. Canavero lacks the funds to take his plans further, but he believes “the money is out there” for a commercial moonshot project: “What I say to the billionaires is ‘Come together.’ You will all have your own share, plus make yourselves immortal.”

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments
Dec 24 2025
Researchers are getting organoids pregnant with human embryos

At first glance, it looks like the start of a human pregnancy: A ball-shaped embryo presses gently into the receptive lining of the uterus and then grips tight, burrowing in as the first tendrils of a future placenta appear. 

This is implantation—the moment that pregnancy officially begins.

Only none of it is happening inside a body. These images were captured in a Beijing laboratory, inside a microfluidic chip, as scientists watched the scene unfold.

a microfluidic chip with channel measurements marked in mm
This transparent microfluidic chip is used to grow an organoid that mimics the lining of a uterus.
COURTESY OF THE RESEARCHERS

In three papers published this week by Cell Press, scientists are reporting what they call the most accurate efforts yet to mimic the first moments of pregnancy in the lab. They’ve taken human embryos from IVF centers and let these merge with “organoids” made of endometrial cells, which form the lining of the uterus.

The reports—two from China and a third involving a collaboration among researchers in the United Kingdom, Spain, and the US—show how scientists are using engineered tissues to better understand early pregnancy and potentially improve IVF outcomes.

“You have an embryo and the endometrial organoid together,” says Jun Wu, a biologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, in Dallas, who contributed to both Chinese reports. “That’s the overarching message of all three papers.”

According to the papers, these 3D combinations are the most complete re-creations yet of the first days of pregnancy and should be useful for studying why IVF treatments often fail.

In each case, the experiments were stopped when the embryos were two weeks old, if not sooner. That is due to legal and ethical rules that typically restrict scientists from going any further than 14 days.

In your basic IVF procedure, an egg is fertilized in the lab and allowed to develop into a spherical embryo called a blastocyst—a process that takes a few days. That blastocyst then gets put into a patient’s uterus in the hope it will establish itself there and ultimately become a baby.

two embryos growing in placental tissue
Two blastoids, or artificial embryos (circles), grow inside an organoid.
COURTESY OF THE RESEARCHERS

But that’s a common failure point. Many patients will learn that their IVF procedure didn’t work because an embryo never attached.

In the new reports, it’s that initial bond between mother and embryo that is being reproduced in the lab. “IVF means in vitro fertilization, but now this is the stage of in vitro implantation,” says Matteo Molè, a biologist at Stanford University whose results with collaborators in Europe are among those published today. “Considering that implantation is a barrier [to pregnancy], we have the potential to increase the success rate if we can model it in the laboratory.”

Normally implantation is entirely hidden from view because it occurs in someone’s uterus, says Hongmei Wang, a developmental biologist at the Beijing Institute for Stem Cell and Regenerative Medicine, who co-led the effort there. Wang often studies monkeys because she can interrupt their pregnancies to collect the tissues she needs to see. “We’ve always hoped to understand human embryo implantation, but we have lacked a way to do so,” she says. “It’s all happening in the uterus.”

In the Beijing study, researchers tested about 50 donated IVF embryos, but they also ran a thousand more experiments using so-called blastoids. The latter are mimics of early-stage human embryos manufactured from stem cells. Blastoids are easy to make in large numbers and, since they aren’t true embryos, don’t have as many ethical rules on their use.

“The question was, if we have these blastoids, what can we use them for?” says Leqian Yu, the senior author of the report from the Beijing Institute. “The obvious next step was implantation. So how do you do that?”

For the Beijing team, the answer was to build a soft silicone chamber with tiny channels to add nutrients and a space to grow the uterine organoid. After that, blastoids—or real embryos—could be introduced through a window in the device, so the “pregnancy” could start.

“The key question we want to try to answer is what is the first cross-talk between embryo and mother,” says Yu. “I think this is maybe the first time we can see the entire process.”

Medical applications

This isn’t the first time researchers have tried using organoids for this kind of research. At least two startup companies have raised funds to commercialize similar systems—in some cases presenting the organoids as a tool to predict IVF success. In addition to Dawn Bio, a startup based in Vienna, there is Simbryo Technologies, in Houston, which last month said it would begin offering “personalized” predictions for IVF patients using blastoids and endometrial organoids.

To do that test, doctors will take a biopsy of a patient’s uterine lining and grow organoids from it. After that, blastoids will be added to the organoids to gauge whether a woman is likely to be able to support a pregnancy or not. If the blastoids don’t start to implant, it could mean the patient’s uterus isn’t receptive and is the reason IVF isn’t working.

The Beijing team thinks the pregnancy organoids could also be used to identify drugs that might help those patients. In their paper, they describe how they made organoids out of tissue taken from women who’ve had repeated IVF failures. Then they tested 1,119 approved drugs on those samples to see if anything improved.

Several seemed to have helpful effects. One chemical, avobenzone, an ingredient in some types of sunblock, increased the chance that a blastoid would start implanting from just 5% of the time to around 25% of the time. Yu says his center hopes to eventually start a clinical trial if they can find the right drug to try. 

Artificial womb?

The Beijing group is working on ways to improve the organoid system so that it’s even more realistic. Right now, it lacks important cell types, including immune cells and a blood supply. Yu says a next step he’s working on is to add blood vessels and tiny pumps to his chip device, so that he can give the organoids a kind of rudimentary circulation.

This means that in the near future, blastoids or embryos could likely be grown longer, raising questions about how far scientists will be able to take pregnancy in the lab. “I think this technology does raise the possibility of growing things longer,” says Wu, who says some view the research as an initial step toward creating babies entirely outside the body.

However, Wu says incubating a human to term in the laboratory remains impossible, for the time being. “This technology is certainly related to ectogenesis, or development outside the body,” he says. “But I don’t think it’s anywhere near an artificial womb. That’s still science fiction.”

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments
Dec 23 2025
This company is developing gene therapies for muscle growth, erectile dysfunction, and “radical longevity”

At some point next month, a handful of volunteers will be injected with two experimental gene therapies as part of an unusual clinical trial. The drugs are potential longevity therapies, says Ivan Morgunov, the CEO of Unlimited Bio, the company behind the trial. His long-term goal: to achieve radical human life extension.

The 12 to 15 volunteers—who will be covering their own travel and treatment costs—will receive a series of injections in the muscles of their arms and legs. One of the therapies is designed to increase the blood supply to those muscles. The other is designed to support muscle growth. The company hopes to see improvements in strength, endurance, and recovery. It also plans to eventually trial similar therapies in the scalp (for baldness) and penis (for erectile dysfunction).

But some experts are concerned that the trial involves giving multiple gene therapies to small numbers of healthy people. It will be impossible to draw firm conclusions from such a small study, and the trial certainly won’t reveal anything about longevity, says Holly Fernandez Lynch, a lawyer and medical ethicist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

Unlimited Bio’s muscle growth therapy is already accessible at clinics in Honduras and Mexico, says Morgunov—and the company is already getting some publicity. Khloe Kardashian tagged Unlimited Bio in a Facebook post about stem-cell treatments she and her sister Kim had received at the Eterna clinic in Mexico in August. And earlier this week, the biohacking influencer Dave Asprey posted an Instagram Reel of himself receiving one of the treatments in Mexico; it was shared with 1.3 million Instagram followers. In the video, Eterna’s CEO, Adeel Khan, says that the therapy can “help with vascular health systemically.” “I’m just upgrading my system for a little while to reduce my age and reduce my vascular risk,” Asprey said.

Genes for life

Gene therapies typically work by introducing new genetic code into the body’s cells. This code is then able to make proteins. Existing approved gene therapies have typically been developed for severe diseases in which the target proteins are either missing or mutated.

But several groups are exploring gene therapies for healthy people. One of these companies is Minicircle, which developed a gene therapy to increase production of follistatin, a protein found throughout the body that has many roles and is involved in muscle growth. The company says this treatment will increase muscle mass—and help people live longer. Minicircle is based in Próspera, a special economic zone in Honduras with its own bespoke regulatory system. Anyone can visit the local clinic and receive that therapy, for a reported price of $25,000. And many have, including the wealthy longevity influencer Bryan Johnson, who promoted the therapy in a Netflix documentary.

Unlimited Bio’s Morgunov, a Russian-Israeli computer scientist, was inspired by Minicircle’s story. He is also interested in longevity. Specifically, he’s committed to radical life extension and has said that he could be part of “the last generation throughout human history to die from old age.” He believes the biggest “bottleneck” slowing progress toward anti-aging or lifespan-extending therapies is drug regulation. So he, too, incorporated his own biotech company in Próspera.

“A company like ours couldn’t exist outside of Próspera,” says Unlimited Bio’s chief operating officer, Vladimir Leshko.

There, Morgunov and his colleagues are exploring two gene therapies. One of these is another follistatin therapy, which the team hopes will increase muscle mass. The other codes for a protein called vascular endothelial growth factor, or VEGF. This compound is known to encourage the growth of blood vessels. Morgunov and his colleagues hope the result will be increased muscle growth, enhanced muscle repair, and longer life. Neither treatment is designed to alter a recipient’s DNA, and therefore it won’t be inherited by future generations.

The combination of the two therapies could benefit healthy people and potentially help them live longer, says Leshko, a former electrical engineer and professional poker player who retrained in biomedical engineering. “We would say that it’s a preventive-slash-enhancing indication,” he says. “Potentially participants can experience faster recovery from exercise, more strength, and more endurance.”

Of the 12 to 15 volunteers who participate in the trial, half will receive only the VEGF therapy. The other half will receive both the VEGF and the follistatin therapies. The treatments will involve a series of injections throughout large muscles in the arms and legs, says Morgunov.

He is confident that the VEGF therapy is safe. It was approved in Russia over a decade ago to treat lower-limb ischemia—a condition that can cause pain, numbness, and painful ulcers in the legs and feet. Morgunov reckons that around 10,000 people in Russia have already had the drug, although he says he hasn’t “done deep fact-checking on that.”

Other researchers aren’t convinced.

Limited bio

VEGF is a powerful compound, says Seppo Ylä-Herttuala, a professor of molecular medicine at the University of Eastern Finland who has been studying VEGF and potential VEGF therapies for decades. He doesn’t know how many people have had VEGF gene therapy in Russia. But he does know that the safety of the therapy will depend on how much is administered and where. Previous attempts to inject the therapy into the heart, for example, have resulted in edema, a sometimes fatal buildup of fluid. Even if the therapy is injected elsewhere, VEGF can travel around the body, he says. If it gets to the eye, for example, it could cause blindness. Leshko counters that the VEGF should remain where it is injected, and any other circulation in the body, if it occurs, should be short-lived. 

And while the therapy has been approved in Russia, there’s a reason it hasn’t been approved elsewhere, says Ylä-Herttuala: The clinical trials were not as rigorous as they could have been. While “it probably works in some patients,” he says, the evidence to support the use of this therapy is weak. At any rate, he adds, VEGF will only support the growth of blood vessels—it won’t tackle aging.  “VEGF is not a longevity drug,” he says.

Leshko points to a 2021 study in mice, which suggested that a lack of VEGF activity might drive aging in the rodents. “We’re convinced it qualifies as a potential longevity drug,” he says.

There is even less data about follistatin. Minicircle, the company selling another follistatin gene therapy, has not published any rigorous clinical trial data. So far, much of the evidence for follistatin’s effects comes from research in rodents, says Ylä-Herttuala.

Clinical trials like this one should gather more information, both about the therapies and about the methods used to get those therapies into the body. Unlimited Bio’s VEGF therapy will be delivered via a circular piece of genetic code called a plasmid. Its follistatin therapy, on the other hand, will be delivered via an adeno-associated virus (AAV). Plasmid therapies are easier to make, and they have a shorter lifespan in the body—only a matter of days. They are generally considered to be safer than AAV therapies. AAV therapies, on the other hand, tend to stick around for months, says Ylä-Herttuala. And they can trigger potentially dangerous immune reactions.

It’s debatable whether healthy people should be exposed to these risks, says Fernandez Lynch. The technology “still has serious questions about its safety and effectiveness,” even for people with life-threatening diseases, she says. “If you are a healthy person, the risk of harm is more substantial because it’ll be more impactful on your life.”

But Leshko is adamant. “Over 120,000 humans die DAILY from age-related causes,” he wrote in an email. “Building ‘ethical’ barriers around ‘healthy’ human (in fact, aging human) trials is unethical.” Morgunov did not respond to a request for comment.

Some people want to take those risks anyway. In his video, the biohacker influencer Asprey—who has publicly stated that he’s “going to live to 180”—described VEGF as a “longevity compound,” and Eterna’s CEO Khan, who delivered the treatment, described it as “the ultimate upgrade.” Neither Asprey nor Khan clinic responded to requests for comment. 

Michael Gusmano, a professor of health policy at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, worries that this messaging might give trial participants unrealistic expectations about how they might benefit. There is “huge potential for therapeutic misconception when you have some kind of celebrity online influencer touting something about which there is relatively sparse scientific evidence,” he says. In reality, he adds, “the only thing you can guarantee is that [the volunteers] will be contributing to our knowledge of how this intervention works.”

“I would certainly not recommend that anyone I know enter into such a trial,” says Gusmano.

A penis project

The muscle study is only the first step. The Unlimited Bio team hopes to trial the VEGF therapy for baldness and erectile dysfunction, too. Leshko points to research in mice that links high VEGF levels to larger, denser hair follicles. He hopes to test a series of VEGF therapy injections into the scalps of volunteers. Morgunov, who is largely bald, has already started to self-experiment with the approach.

An erectile dysfunction trial may follow. “That one we think has great potential because injecting gene therapy into the penis sounds exciting,” says Leshko. A protocol for that trial has not yet been finalized, but he imagines it would involve “five to 10” injections.

Ylä-Herttuala isn’t optimistic about either approach. Hair growth is largely hormonal, he says. And injecting anything into a penis risks damaging it (although Leshko points out that a similar approach was taken by another company almost 20 years ago). Injecting a VEGF gene therapy into the penis would also risk edema there, Ylä-Herttuala adds.

And he points out that we already have some treatments for hair loss and erectile dysfunction. While they aren’t perfect, their existence does raise the bar for any potential future therapies—not only do they have to be safe and effective, but they must be safer or more effective than existing ones.

That doesn’t mean the trials will flop. No small trial can be definitive, but it could still provide some insight into how these drugs are working. It is possible that the therapies will increase muscle mass, at least, and that this could be beneficial to the healthy recipients, says Ylä-Herttuala. 

Before our call, he had taken a look at Unlimited Bio’s website, which carries the tagline “The Most Advanced Rejuvenation Solution.” “They promise a lot,” he said. “I hope it’s true.”

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments
Dec 19 2025
Take our quiz on the year in health and biotechnology

In just a couple of weeks, we’ll be bidding farewell to 2025. And what a year it has been! Artificial intelligence is being incorporated into more aspects of our lives, weight-loss drugs have expanded in scope, and there have been some real “omg” biotech stories from the fields of gene therapy, IVF, neurotech, and more.   

As always, the team at MIT Technology Review has been putting together our 2026 list of breakthrough technologies. That will be published in the new year (watch this space). In the meantime, my colleague Antonio Regalado has compiled his traditional list of the year’s worst technologies.

I’m inviting you to put your own memory to the test. Just how closely have you been paying attention to the Checkup emails that have been landing in your inbox this year?!

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.

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments
Dec 13 2025
Expanded carrier screening: Is it worth it?

This week I’ve been thinking about babies. Healthy ones. Perfect ones. As you may have read last week, my colleague Antonio Regalado came face to face with a marketing campaign in the New York subway asking people to “have your best baby.”

The company behind that campaign, Nucleus Genomics, says it offers customers a way to select embryos for a range of traits, including height and IQ. It’s an extreme proposition, but it does seem to be growing in popularity—potentially even in the UK, where it’s illegal.

The other end of the screening spectrum is transforming too. Carrier screening, which tests would-be parents for hidden genetic mutations that might affect their children, initially involved testing for specific genes in at-risk populations.

Now, it’s open to almost everyone who can afford it. Companies will offer to test for hundreds of genes to help people make informed decisions when they try to become parents. But expanded carrier screening comes with downsides. And it isn’t for everyone.

That’s what I found earlier this week when I attended the Progress Educational Trust’s annual conference in London.

First, a bit of background. Our cells carry 23 pairs of chromosomes, each with thousands of genes. The same gene—say, one that codes for eye color—can come in different forms, or alleles. If the allele is dominant, you only need one copy to express that trait. That’s the case for the allele responsible for brown eyes. 

If the allele is recessive, the trait doesn’t show up unless you have two copies. This is the case with the allele responsible for blue eyes, for example.

Things get more serious when we consider genes that can affect a person’s risk of disease. Having a single recessive disease-causing gene typically won’t cause you any problems. But a genetic disease could show up in children who inherit the same recessive gene from both parents. There’s a 25% chance that two “carriers” will have an affected child. And those cases can come as a shock to the parents, who tend to have no symptoms and no family history of disease.

This can be especially problematic in communities with high rates of those alleles. Consider Tay-Sachs disease—a rare and fatal neurodegenerative disorder caused by a recessive genetic mutation. Around one in 25 members of the Ashkenazi Jewish population is a healthy carrier for Tay-Sachs. Screening would-be parents for those recessive genes can be helpful. Carrier screening efforts in the Jewish community, which have been running since the 1970s, have massively reduced cases of Tay-Sachs.

Expanded carrier screening takes things further. Instead of screening for certain high-risk alleles in at-risk populations, there’s an option to test for a wide array of diseases in prospective parents and egg and sperm donors. The companies offering these screens “started out with 100 genes, and now some of them go up to 2,000,” Sara Levene, genetics counsellor at Guided Genetics, said at the meeting. “It’s becoming a bit of an arms race amongst labs, to be honest.”

There are benefits to expanded carrier screening. In most cases, the results are reassuring. And if something is flagged, prospective parents have options; they can often opt for additional testing to get more information about a particular pregnancy, for example, or choose to use other donor eggs or sperm to get pregnant. But there are also downsides. For a start, the tests can’t entirely rule out the risk of genetic disease.

Earlier this week, the BBC reported news of a sperm donor who had unwittingly passed on to at least 197 children in Europe a genetic mutation that dramatically increased the risk of cancer. Some of those children have already died.

It’s a tragic case. That donor had passed screening checks. The (dominant) mutation appears to have occurred in his testes, affecting around 20% of his sperm. It wouldn’t have shown up in a screen for recessive alleles, or even a blood test.

Even recessive diseases can be influenced by many genes, some of which won’t be included in the screen. And the screens don’t account for other factors that could influence a person’s risk of disease, such as epigenetics, microbiome, or even lifestyle.

“There’s always a 3% to 4% chance [of having] a child with a medical issue regardless of the screening performed,” said Jackson Kirkman-Brown, professor of reproductive biology at the University of Birmingham, at the meeting.

The tests can also cause stress. As soon as a clinician even mentions expanded carrier screening, it adds to the mental load of the patient, said Kirkman-Brown: “We’re saying this is another piece of information you need to worry about.”

People can also feel pressured to undergo expanded carrier screening even when they are ambivalent about it, said Heidi Mertes, a medical ethicist at Ghent University. “Once the technology is there, people feel like if they don’t take this opportunity up, then they are kind of doing something wrong or missing out,” she said.

My takeaway from the presentations was that while expanded carrier screening can be useful, especially for people from populations with known genetic risks, it won’t be for everyone.

I also worry that, as with the genetic tests offered by Nucleus, its availability gives the impression that it is possible to have a “perfect” baby—even if that only means “free from disease.” The truth is that there’s a lot about reproduction that we can’t control.

The decision to undergo expanded carrier screening is a personal choice. But as Mertes noted at the meeting: “Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.”

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.

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments
Dec 6 2025
The ads that sell the sizzle of genetic trait discrimination

One day this fall, I watched an electronic sign outside the Broadway-Lafayette subway station in Manhattan switch seamlessly between an ad for makeup and one promoting the website Pickyourbaby.com, which promises a way for potential parents to use genetic tests to influence their baby’s traits, including eye color, hair color, and IQ.

Inside the station, every surface was wrapped with more ads—babies on turnstiles, on staircases, on banners overhead. “Think about it. Makeup and then genetic optimization,” exulted Kian Sadeghi, the 26-year-old founder of Nucleus Genomics, the startup running the ads. To his mind, one should be as accessible as the other. 

Nucleus is a young, attention-seeking genetic software company that says it can analyze genetic tests on IVF embryos to score them for 2,000 traits and disease risks, letting parents pick some and reject others. This is possible because of how our DNA shapes us, sometimes powerfully. As one of the subway banners reminded the New York riders: “Height is 80% genetic.”

The day after the campaign launched, Sadeghi and I had briefly sparred online. He’d been on X showing off a phone app where parents can click through traits like eye color and hair color. I snapped back that all this sounded a lot like Uber Eats—another crappy, frictionless future invented by entrepreneurs, but this time you’d click for a baby.

I agreed to meet Sadeghi that night in the station under a banner that read, “IQ is 50% genetic.” He appeared in a puffer jacket and told me the campaign would soon spread to 1,000 train cars. Not long ago, this was a secretive technology to whisper about at Silicon Valley dinner parties. But now? “Look at the stairs. The entire subway is genetic optimization. We’re bringing it mainstream,” he said. “I mean, like, we are normalizing it, right?”

Normalizing what, exactly? The ability to choose embryos on the basis of predicted traits could lead to healthier people. But the traits mentioned in the subway—height and IQ—focus the public’s mind toward cosmetic choices and even naked discrimination. “I think people are going to read this and start realizing: Wow, it is now an option that I can pick. I can have a taller, smarter, healthier baby,” says Sadeghi.

Entrepreneur Kian Sadeghi stands under advertising banner in the Broadway-Lafayette subway station in Manhattan, part of a campaign called “Have Your Best Baby.”
COURTESY OF THE AUTHOR

Nucleus got its seed funding from Founders Fund, an investment firm known for its love of contrarian bets. And embryo scoring fits right in—it’s an unpopular concept, and professional groups say the genetic predictions aren’t reliable. So far, leading IVF clinics still refuse to offer these tests. Doctors worry, among other things, that they’ll create unrealistic parental expectations. What if little Johnny doesn’t do as well on the SAT as his embryo score predicted?

The ad blitz is a way to end-run such gatekeepers: If a clinic won’t agree to order the test, would-be parents can take their business elsewhere. Another embryo testing company, Orchid, notes that high consumer demand emboldened Uber’s early incursions into regulated taxi markets. “Doctors are essentially being shoved in the direction of using it, not because they want to, but because they will lose patients if they don’t,” Orchid founder Noor Siddiqui said during an online event this past August.

Sadeghi prefers to compare his startup to Airbnb. He hopes it can link customers to clinics, becoming a digital “funnel” offering a “better experience” for everyone. He notes that Nucleus ads don’t mention DNA or any details of how the scoring technique works. That’s not the point. In advertising, you sell the sizzle, not the steak. And in Nucleus’s ad copy, what sizzles is height, smarts, and light-colored eyes.

It makes you wonder if the ads should be permitted. Indeed, I learned from Sadeghi that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority had objected to parts of the campaign. The metro agency, for instance, did not let Nucleus run ads saying “Have a girl” and “Have a boy,” even though it’s very easy to identify the sex of an embryo using a genetic test. The reason was an MTA policy that forbids using government-owned infrastructure to promote “invidious discrimination” against protected classes, which include race, religion and biological sex.

Since 2023, New York City has also included height and weight in its anti-discrimination law, the idea being to “root out bias” related to body size in housing and in public spaces. So I’m not sure why the MTA let Nucleus declare that height is 80% genetic. (The MTA advertising department didn’t respond to questions.) Perhaps it’s because the statement is a factual claim, not an explicit call to action. But we all know what to do: Pick the tall one and leave shorty in the IVF freezer, never to be born.

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.

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments
Nov 29 2025
What we still don’t know about weight-loss drugs

<div data-chronoton-summary="

  • Mixed research results Despite promising applications, recent studies delivered disappointments: GLP-1 drugs failed to slow Alzheimer’s progression in a major trial.
  • Pregnancy concerns People who stop taking GLP-1s before pregnancy may experience excessive weight gain and potentially higher risks of complications. Conflicting studies have created confusion about pre-pregnancy use, while postpartum usage is increasing without understanding potential impacts.
  • Long-term questions When people stop taking GLP-1s, most regain significant weight and see worsening heart health. Scientists still don’t know if indefinite use is necessary or safe, nor understand long-term effects on children or healthy-weight people using them for weight loss.

” data-chronoton-post-id=”1128511″ data-chronoton-expand-collapse=”1″ data-chronoton-analytics-enabled=”1″>

MIT Technology Review Explains: Let our writers untangle the complex, messy world of technology to help you understand what’s coming next. You can read more from the series here.

Weight-loss drugs have been back in the news this week. First, we heard that Eli Lilly, the company behind the drugs Mounjaro and Zepbound, became the first healthcare company in the world to achieve a trillion-dollar valuation.

Those two drugs, which are prescribed for diabetes and obesity respectively, are generating billions of dollars in revenue for the company. Other GLP-1 agonist drugs—a class that includes Mounjaro and Zepbound, which have the same active ingredient—have also been approved to reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke in overweight people. Many hope these apparent wonder drugs will also treat neurological disorders and potentially substance use disorders, too.

But this week we also learned that, disappointingly, GLP-1 drugs don’t seem to help people with Alzheimer’s disease. And that people who stop taking the drugs when they become pregnant can experience potentially dangerous levels of weight gain during their pregnancies. On top of that, some researchers worry that people are using the drugs postpartum to lose pregnancy weight without understanding potential risks.

All of this news should serve as a reminder that there’s a lot we still don’t know about these drugs. This week, let’s look at the enduring questions surrounding GLP-1 agonist drugs.

First a quick recap. Glucagon-like peptide-1 is a hormone made in the gut that helps regulate blood sugar levels. But we’ve learned that it also appears to have effects across the body. Receptors that GLP-1 can bind to have been found in multiple organs and throughout the brain, says Daniel Drucker, an endocrinologist at the University of Toronto who has been studying the hormone for decades.

GLP-1 agonist drugs essentially mimic the hormone’s action. Quite a few have been developed, including semaglutide, tirzepatide, liraglutide, and exenatide, which have brand names like Ozempic, Saxenda and Wegovy. Some of them are recommended for some people with diabetes.

But because these drugs also seem to suppress appetite, they have become hugely popular weight loss aids. And studies have found that many people who take them for diabetes or weight loss experience surprising side effects; that their mental health improves, for example, or that they feel less inclined to smoke or consume alcohol. Research has also found that the drugs seem to increase the growth of brain cells in lab animals.

So far, so promising. But there are a few outstanding gray areas.

Are they good for our brains?

Novo Nordisk, a competitor of Eli Lilly, manufactures GLP-1 drugs Wegovy and Saxenda. The company recently trialed an oral semaglutide in people with Alzheimer’s disease who had mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia. The placebo-controlled trial included 3808 volunteers.

Unfortunately, the company found that the drug did not appear to delay the progression of Alzheimer’s disease in the volunteers who took it.

The news came as a huge disappointment to the research community. “It was kind of crushing,” says Drucker. That’s despite the fact that, deep down, he wasn’t expecting a “clear win.” Alzheimer’s disease has proven notoriously difficult to treat, and by the time people get a diagnosis, a lot of damage has already taken place.

But he is one of many that isn’t giving up hope entirely. After all, research suggests that GLP-1 reduces inflammation in the brain and improves the health of neurons, and that it appears to improve the way brain regions communicate with each other. This all implies that GLP-1 drugs should benefit the brain, says Drucker. There’s still a chance that the drugs might help stave off Alzheimer’s in those who are still cognitively healthy.

Are they safe before, during or after pregnancy?

Other research published this week raises questions about the effects of GLP-1s taken around the time of pregnancy. At the moment, people are advised to plan to stop taking the medicines two months before they become pregnant. That’s partly because some animal studies suggest the drugs can harm the development of a fetus, but mainly because scientists haven’t studied the impact on pregnancy in humans.

Among the broader population, research suggests that many people who take GLP-1s for weight loss regain much of their lost weight once they stop taking those drugs. So perhaps it’s not surprising that a study published in JAMA earlier this week saw a similar effect in pregnant people.

The study found that people who had been taking those drugs gained around 3.3kg more than others who had not. And those who had been taking the drugs also appeared to have a slightly higher risk of gestational diabetes, blood pressure disorders and even preterm birth.

It sounds pretty worrying. But a different study published in August had the opposite finding—it noted a reduction in the risk of those outcomes among women who had taken the drugs before becoming pregnant.

If you’re wondering how to make sense of all this, you’re not the only one. No one really knows how these drugs should be used before pregnancy—or during it for that matter.

Another study out this week found that people (in Denmark) are increasingly taking GLP-1s postpartum to lose weight gained during pregnancy. Drucker tells me that, anecdotally, he gets asked about this potential use a lot.

But there’s a lot going on in a postpartum body. It’s a time of huge physical and hormonal change that can include bonding, breastfeeding and even a rewiring of the brain. We have no idea if, or how, GLP-1s might affect any of those.

How—and when—can people safely stop using them?

Yet another study out this week—you can tell GLP-1s are one of the hottest topics in medicine right now—looked at what happens when people stop taking tirzepatide (marketed as Zepbound) for their obesity.

The trial participants all took the drug for 36 weeks, at which point half continued with the drug, and half were switched to a placebo for another 52 weeks. During that first 36 weeks, the weight and heart health of the participants improved.

But by the end of the study, most of those that had switched to a placebo had regained more than 25% of the weight they had originally lost. One in four had regained more than 75% of that weight, and 9% ended up at a higher weight than when they’d started the study. Their heart health also worsened.

Does that mean that people need to take these drugs forever? Scientists don’t have the answer to that one, either. Or if taking the drugs indefinitely is safe. The answer might depend on the individual, their age or health status, or what they are using the drug for.

There are other gray areas. GLP-1s look promising for substance use disorders, but we don’t yet know how effective they might be. We don’t know the long-term effects these drugs have on children who take them. And we don’t know the long-term consequences these drugs might have for healthy-weight people who take them for weight loss.

Earlier this year, Drucker accepted a Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences at a glitzy event in California. “All of these Hollywood celebrities were coming up to me and saying ‘thank you so much,’” he says. “A lot of these people don’t need to be on these medicines.”

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.

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments