An anonymous reader quotes a report from the New York Times: Since online genealogy services began operating, millions of people have sent them saliva samples in hopes of learning about their family roots and discovering far-flung relatives. These services also appeal to law enforcement authorities, who have used them to solve cold case murders and to investigate crimes like the 2022 killing of four University of Idaho students. Crime-scene DNA submitted to genealogy sites has helped investigators identify suspects and human remains by first identifying relatives. The use of public records and family-tree building is crucial to this technique, and its main tool has been the genealogy site Ancestry, which has vast amounts of individual DNA profiles and public records. More than 1,400 cases have been solved with the help of so-called genetic genealogy investigations, most of them with help from Ancestry. But a recent step taken by the site is now deterring many police agencies from employing this crime-solving technique. In August, Ancestry revised the terms and conditions on its site to make it clear that its services were off-limits "for law enforcement purposes" without a legal order or warrant, which can be hard to get, because of privacy concerns. This followed the addition last year to the terms and conditions that the services could not be used for "judicial proceedings." Investigators say the implications are dire and will result in crucial criminal cases slowing or stalling entirely, denying answers to grieving families. "Everyone who does this work has depended on the records database that Ancestry controls," said David Gurney, who runs Ramapo College's Investigative Genetic Genealogy Center in New Jersey. "Without it, casework is going to be a lot slower, and there will be some cases that can't be resolved at all."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

The Washington Post reports: Scientists in Switzerland have created a robot the size of a grain of sand that is controlled by magnets and can deliver drugs to a precise location in the human body, a breakthrough aimed at reducing the severe side effects that stop many medicines from advancing in clinical trials... "I think surgeons are going to look at this," [said Bradley J. Nelson, an author of the paper in Science describing the discovery and a professor of robotics and intelligent systems at ETH Zurich]. I'm sure they're going to have a lot of ideas on how to use" the microrobot. The capsule, which is steered by magnets, might also be useful in treating aneurysms, very aggressive brain cancers, and abnormal connections between arteries and veins known as arteriovenous malformations, Nelson said. The capsules have been tested successfully in pigs, which have similar vasculature to humans, and in silicone models of the blood vessels in humans and animals... Nelson said drug-ferrying microrobots of this kind may be three to five years from being tested in clinical trials. The problem faced by many drugs under development is that they spread throughout the body instead of going only to the area in need... A major cause of side effects in patients is medications traveling to parts of the body that don't need them. The capsules developed in Switzerland, however, can be maneuvered into precise locations by a surgeon using a tool not that different from a PlayStation controller. The navigation system involves six electromagnetic coils positioned around the patient, each about 8 to 10 inches in diameter... The capsules are made of materials that have been found safe for people in other medical tools... When the capsule reaches its destination in the body, "we can trigger the capsule to dissolve," Nelson said.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

A Chinese man who cryogenically preserved his wife after her death has sparked a heated online debate after it emerged he began dating a new partner in 2020. Some argue it's natural for him to move on, while others say he's being selfish or disrespectful to both his late wife and his current partner. The BBC reports: As a sign of his devotion, Gui Junmin decided to freeze his wife Zhan Wenlian's body after she died from lung cancer in 2017, aged 49, making her China's first cryogenically preserved person. But after a November interview revealed he had been dating a different partner since 2020, Chinese social media has been torn on Mr Junmin's predicament. Whilst some asked why the 57-year-old didn't just "let go" another commenter remarked he appeared to be "most devoted to himself." After Zhan Wenlian was given months to live by doctors, Gui Junmin decided to use cryonics - which is scientifically unproven - to preserve her body once she died. Following her death, he signed a 30-year agreement to preserve his wife's frozen body with the Shandong Yinfeng Life Science Research Institute. Since then, Zhan's body has been stored in a 2,000-litre container at the institute in a vat of -190C liquid nitrogen. Chinese newspaper Southern Weekly revealed that although Mr Junmin lived alone for two years after the procedure, in 2020 he began dating again, despite his wife remaining in cryopreservation. He told the newspaper that a severe gout attack which left him unable to move for two days began to change his mind about the benefits of living alone. Soon after, he started seeing his current partner Wang Chunxia, although Mr Junmin suggested to the paper the love was only "utilitarian" and that she hadn't "entered" his heart.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

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.”

Science Corporation—a competitor to Neuralink founded by the former president of Elon Musk’s brain-interface venture—has leapfrogged its rival after acquiring, at a fire-sale price, a vision implant that’s in advanced testing,.

The implant produces a form of “artificial vision” that lets some patients read text and do crosswords, according to a report published in the New England Journal of Medicine today.

The implant is a microelectronic chip placed under the retina. Using signals from a camera mounted on a pair of glasses, the chip emits bursts of electricity in order to bypass photoreceptor cells damaged by macular degeneration, the leading cause of vision loss in elderly people.

“The magnitude of the effect is what’s notable,” says José-Alain Sahel, a University of Pittsburgh vision scientist who led testing of the system, which is called PRIMA. “There’s a patient in the UK and she is reading the pages of a regular book, which is unprecedented.”  

Until last year, the device was being developed by Pixium Vision, a French startup cofounded by Sahel, which faced bankruptcy after it couldn’t raise more cash.  

That’s when Science Corporation swept in to purchase the company’s assets for about €4 million ($4.7 million), according to court filings.

“Science was able to buy it for very cheap just when the study was coming out, so it was good timing for them,” says Sahel. “They could quickly access very advanced technology that’s closer to the market, which is good for a company to have.”

Science was founded in 2021 by Max Hodak, the first president of Neuralink, after his sudden departure from that company. Since its founding, Science has raised around $290 million, according to the venture capital database Pitchbook, and used the money to launch broad-ranging exploratory research on brain interfaces and new types of vision treatments.

“The ambition here is to build a big, standalone medical technology company that would fit in with an Apple, Samsung, or an Alphabet,” Hodak said in an interview at Science’s labs in Alameda, California in September. “The goal is to change the world in important ways … but we need to make money in order to invest in these programs.”

By acquiring the PRIMA implant program, Science effectively vaulted past years of development and testing. The company has requested approval to sell the eye chip in Europe and is in discussions with regulators in the US.

Unlike Neuralink’s implant, which records brain signals so paralyzed recipients can use their thoughts to move a computer mouse, the retina chip sends information into the brain to produce vision. Because the retina is an outgrowth of the brain, the chip qualifies as a type of brain-computer interface.

Artificial vision systems have been studied for years and one, called the Argus II, even reached the market and was installed in the eyes of about 400 people. But that product was later withdrawn after it proved to be a money-loser, according to Cortigent, the company that now owns that technology.

Thirty-eight patients in Europe received a PRIMA implant in one eye. On average, the study found, they were able to read five additional lines on a vision chart—the kind with rows of letters, each smaller than the last. Some of that improvement was due to what Sahel calls “various tricks” like using a zoom function, which allows patients to zero in on text they want to read.

The type of vision loss being treated with the new implant is called geographic atrophy, in which patients have peripheral vision but can’t make out objects directly in front of them, like words or faces. According to Prevent Blindness, an advocacy organization, this type of central vision loss affects around one in 10 people over 80.  

The implant was originally designed starting 20 years ago by Daniel Palanker, a laser expert and now a professor at Stanford University, who says his breakthrough was realizing that light beams could supply both energy and information to a chip placed under the retina. Other implants, like Argus II, use a wire, which adds complexity.

“The chip has no brains at all. It just turns light into electrical current that flows into the tissue,” says Palanker. “Patients describe the color they see as yellowish blue or sun color.”

The system works using a wearable camera that records a scene and then blasts bright infrared light into the eye, using a wavelength humans can’t see. That light hits the chip, which is covered by “what are basically tiny solar panels,” says Palanker. “We just try to replace the photoreceptors with a photo-array.”

The current system produces about 400 spots of vision, which lets users make out the outlines of words and objects. Palanaker says a next-generation device will have five times as many “pixels” and should let people see more: “What we discovered in the trial is that even though you stimulate individual pixels, patients perceive it as continuous. The patient says ‘I see a line,’ “I see a letter.’”

Palanker says it will be important to keep improving the system because “the market size depends on the quality of the vision produced.”

When Pixium teetered on insolvency, Palanker says, he helped search for a buyer, meeting with Hodak. “It was a fire sale, not a celebration,” he says. “But for me it’s a very lucky outcome, because it means the product is going forward. And the purchase price doesn’t really matter, because there’s a big investment needed to bring it to market. It’s going to cost money.”  

During a visit to Science’s headquarters, Hodak described the company’s effort to redesign the system into something sleeker and more user-friendly. In the original design, in addition to the wearable camera, the patient has to carry around a bulky controller containing a battery and laser, as well as buttons to zoom in and out. 

But Science has already prototyped a version in which those electronics are squeezed into what look like an extra-large pair of sunglasses.

“The implant is great, but we’ll have new glasses on patients fairly shortly,” Hodak says. “This will substantially improve their ability to have it with them all day.” 

Other companies also want to treat blindness with brain-computer interfaces, but some think it might be better to send signals directly into the brain. This year, Neuralink has been touting plans for “Blindsight,” a project to send electrical signals directly into the brain’s visual cortex, bypassing the retina entirely. It has yet to test the approach in a person.