safely.bio: Customer screening for DNA synthesis providers
Project Details
Updated 08/06/26 · Edited by orgThe problem / why now
AI is making it easier to engineer biology. Frontier models now outperform expert virologists at troubleshooting wet-lab experiments (virologytest.ai). Open-source tools can predict which mutations let a pathogen escape existing immunity (evescape.org). As models become more biologically capable, the number of bad actors able to cause harm with biology will rise dramatically.
Fortunately, anyone designing a threat must still gain access to biological material and equipment. Experts see securing access to synthetic DNA as the most promising chokepoint to defend. This idea has widespread support from the CEOs of frontier AI labs, the DNA synthesis industry, broader biotech, and the policy community, who have recently signed an open letter calling for mandatory customer screening (screendna.org). Regulation has been proposed in the US (S.3741) and the EU (Biotech Act).
Progress so far
safely.bio is building Verify, software that runs know-your-customer checks on the biologists placing DNA orders ahead of this regulation. Our software identifies whether they are legitimate researchers or bad actors. We recently ran a study showing Verify outperforms the public state-of-the-art customer screening tool; the preprint will be released shortly.
We’re two full-time co-founders. Phil Palmer holds a Cambridge PhD in computational biology, worked on biosecurity safeguards at CLTR and the Nuclear Threat Initiative, and was a visiting researcher in Kevin Esvelt's group at MIT. Joey Bream is a third-time founder and software engineer who worked on customer screening with the former White House NSC Director for Biodefense and Pandemic Preparedness at Sentinel Bio. We are three months in, incorporated as a UK Ltd, have spoken to 30+ potential customers, and are currently sprinting to sign design-partner pilots with DNA synthesis companies.
What we'll do
Concrete output over the next four months:
-
Preprint published showing Verify outperforms the public state-of-the-art customer screening tool
-
Pilots signed with 3+ DNA synthesis providers
-
Regulatory engagement in the UK and EU ahead of incoming mandatory KYC requirements (EU Biotech Act, US S.3741)
Theory of Impact
Updated 08/06/26 · By grantmaking.aiWe think that biorisk is the most immediate x-risk posed by frontier AI.
Our theory of change is as follows:
-
We have already built the current state-of-the-art AI customer screening tool
-
DNA synthesis providers adopt our tool
-
We are actively seeking pilot programmes with DNA synthesis companies
-
Regulation will likely mean that 90%+ of DNA synthesis companies screen their customers in regulated jurisdictions in the next two years
-
Note: we do not need 100% adoption for screening to be effective because widespread screening is itself a deterrent for bad actors seeking to cause harm with biology
- Our tool catches and prevents bad actors trying to acquire dangerous DNA
- We refuse malicious orders and increase the probability of catching bad actors (e.g., alerting authorities) before they can make future attempts
- This prevents an existential biothreat
People
Updated 08/06/26 · Edited by orgCo-founder
Co-founder
Funding Details
- Apr 15, 2026
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
Discussion
Private comment. Only shown to approved funders and grant reviewers.
I endorsed this grant proposal because:
- Biosecurity is the highest risk near-term AI threat vector and non-existential biorisks could significantly weaken civilisational resilience ahead of AGI (like COVID arguably did). There are less than 100 people working full time on worst-case biosecurity.
- KYC protocols for mail-order DNA seems like a no-brainer. This needs to be funded yesterday!
- Phil seems like a qualified scientist (PhD in bio from Cambridge) and has lots of cool experience (e.g., CLTR, MIT Media Lab, Lifebit, etc.). He was previously accepted by Ambitious Impact and 5050 incubators, so he has been pre-screened. I expect he will do well as a first-time founder as he has strong technical experience.
I recommend funding this the maximum $50k. Even if Phil can get cG funding soon, every week counts and biosec is an urgent priority.
Also, it's possible that cG won't be funding DNA synthesis screening?
Private comment. Only shown to approved funders and grant reviewers.
Thanks, Ryan. On Coefficient Giving: we applied to their Biosecurity RFP earlier this year but were rejected. Their round received 700+ submissions, and they advanced only a small fraction, with no individualised feedback. Our application has strengthened substantially since then, with preprint results and growing customer conversations both post-CG. This grant would be genuinely counterfactual runway.
Awesome!
- Did you receive funding from anywhere since submitting this application, or has the funding ask changed for any other reason?
- Please confirm your commitment to post quarterly updates on how the project is going
Thanks, @Anton Makiievskyi 🔸
- We haven't received funding since submitting. For transparency: we have been accepted onto the Surplus programme (https://surplus.dev/founders), which includes seed funding, but this is not yet in our account. Activation depends on getting J-1 visas, since the programme involves three months in SF. A positive signal but not banked runway yet
- Yes, happy to commit to quarterly updates for the project
(I previously left a private comment; I didn't mean to)
I love this and want to fund for similar reasons to Ryan.
Biosecurity is the highest near-term threat vector.
I'm worried this will slow down good bio research, but I'm happy to see mail-order DNA being screened.
I really like that they have already started and are pushing forward. I think this is good "get shit done" energy.
I don't know these people, but apparently Ryan does.
In the interest of time, I recommend @Ryan Kidd , and I split this one as well since we both rated it "S"
I first encountered Phil and this project in November during our def/acc hackathon. I was very impressed to see the project back then, and I am even more impressed now. Full support!
Private comment. Only shown to approved funders and grant reviewers.