Curing All Genetic Diseases in a Decade?

Bold claims in Dubai — and why they matter

At the Dubai Future Forum on 18 November 2025, the co‑founder and CEO of a San Francisco biotech said he believes we could treat every genetic disease currently known within the next ten years. The remark landed amid a program focused on genomics, AI and the future of healthcare — and it crystallised a question that has been on the minds of patients, investors and regulators alike: how realistic is a timeline that promises one‑time, curative fixes for the full catalog of genetic disorders?

That optimistic forecast came from a company leader who argues that recent advances in gene editing — especially precision approaches that rewrite DNA in living patients — point to a near‑term era of permanent cures. The forum’s coverage also highlighted regional moves to build large, sovereign genomic databases intended to broaden who benefits from those advances.

Where the momentum comes from

The last handful of years have produced what looks, on paper, like a string of breakthroughs. Cell‑based gene‑editing therapies that modify a patient’s own blood stem cells and then return them have produced dramatic clinical effects in disorders such as sickle cell disease and beta‑thalassemia; one such treatment has won regulatory approval and others are progressing through large trials. These programmes show that editing DNA in human cells can translate into durable clinical benefit.

At the same time, a new generation of in‑vivo editors — systems delivered directly into a patient’s body, often aimed at the liver — have shown early clinical promise. Recent trial results with precision base‑editing tools have demonstrated the ability to make single‑letter changes in DNA inside people and produce meaningful changes in disease biomarkers. Those early clinical data are being interpreted as proof‑of‑principle that precise, one‑time fixes are possible without removing cells from the body first.

Why “all genetic diseases” is a sweeping phrase

Genetic disease is an umbrella term that covers a wide spectrum. At one end are rare, single‑gene disorders where a single mutation causes a predictable and often severe outcome. Those disorders are the best candidates for curative gene editing: replace or repair the faulty sequence, and you can theoretically remove the root cause.

At the other end are complex, polygenic conditions such as many forms of diabetes, heart disease or psychiatric disorders. These arise from the combined effect of many small genetic variants plus environment and lifestyle — there is no single snip to make that will reliably convert disease into health. A claim that all genetic diseases can be cured in a decade glosses over that distinction.

Delivery, safety and scale remain rate‑limiting

Even when a change to DNA would be therapeutic, getting the editing machinery to the right cells safely and efficiently is often the main obstacle. Viral vectors such as adeno‑associated virus (AAV) and lipid nanoparticle (LNP) systems each have limits: immune responses, tissue reach, cargo size and manufacturing complexity. Engineering vectors or nanoparticles that reliably target the brain, heart, lung, muscle and many other tissues — sometimes simultaneously — is still an active and technically challenging field. Reviews and recent studies across nanomedicine and gene‑delivery fields underscore that delivery optimization is among the most persistent hurdles for translating editing tools into broad clinical use.

Safety is equally critical. Durable expression of editing enzymes can increase the risk of unintended edits; immune reactions to delivery vehicles or the editor protein can produce serious adverse events. These issues are not hypothetical: regulators have recently paused or reviewed late‑stage programmes following serious safety signals, showing that vigilance remains essential as trials scale up.

Clinical wins and regulatory reality

Where progress is clearest today is in highly targeted, often ex‑vivo approaches. Editing a patient’s blood stem cells outside the body and returning them sidesteps many delivery problems and has produced life‑changing outcomes for individuals with certain blood disorders; that path has already reached markets. In‑vivo base editors and prime editors, which alter DNA within the patient, are beginning to show early clinical concept validation, but they are less mature and face a higher bar to widespread use.

Economics, access and equity

Even a technically feasible cure does not instantly translate into accessible medicine. One‑time gene therapies are expensive to develop and manufacture; health systems are still debating payment models that reflect a potentially permanent benefit delivered in a single dose. Without deliberate policy and financing mechanisms, these therapies risk remaining niche, available to those in wealthy health systems while others are left behind.

What a realistic ten‑year horizon looks like

• More cures for monogenic diseases: Expect additional ex‑vivo and liver‑targeted in‑vivo treatments to reach later‑stage trials and, in some cases, regulatory approval for single‑gene disorders where delivery is straightforward.
• Incremental gains for complex diseases: Polygenic conditions are likely to see targeted, gene‑level preventive or risk‑reduction strategies rather than universal cures.
• Improved tools and delivery: Advances in smaller Cas proteins, capsid engineering, targeted LNPs and precision base/prime editors will broaden the range of treatable tissues but will not instantly solve all targeting problems.
• Policy and price experiments: Expect new reimbursement models (outcome‑based, annuity payments) and expanded efforts to collect diverse genomic data so therapies work across populations.

So — possible, probable or pie in the sky?

The short answer: parts of the claim are possible; the whole claim is improbable without major, sustained breakthroughs on delivery, safety, regulatory frameworks and global access. The scientific trajectory is impressive: one‑time, curative edits are no longer only theoretical. But moving from individual, spectacular successes to a universal catalogue of cures across tissues and disease architectures is a much larger, multidisciplinary challenge.

Framing the next decade as an era of accelerating cures captures the right spirit. Translating that spirit into reality will require not only editors that can rewrite DNA reliably, but also safer delivery systems, robust long‑term safety data, regulatory alignment, equitable data and creative payment models. Policymakers, funders and the scientific community will need to work in concert to ensure that the coming wave of genetic medicine fulfils its promise for patients everywhere.

— Mattias Risberg, Cologne