I don’t think anyone would ever argue against that
Aren’t they though? Take the example from the article:
KJ Muldoon of Clifton Heights, Pennsylvania, was diagnosed shortly after birth with severe CPS1 deficiency – the buildup of toxic ammonia in the blood.
The experimental therapy, crafted specifically for his condition, corrected a minor yet crucial error in his genetic code, offering hope for others with similarly rare diseases.
While liver transplants can be a solution for some, this innovative gene-editing treatment offers a new avenue of hope.
Presumably this was considered acceptable because it is something that was able to be done after the baby was born. What about similar, unambiguously deleterious conditions (there are lots of really awful ones) that fall afoul of the broad prohibitions on modifying embryos? At least on paper, this is specifically what the company that the article is about claims its focus is; the stuff no one disagrees that it’s bad to be born with. Like it isn’t very arguable that it’s good for babies to have ammonia in their blood and need liver transplants.
Gene editing to create a baby is illegal in the US, UK, and many countries around the world, with critics arguing it is unethical and unsafe.
So really at this point the question is only, do we allow the development and use of this technology for the things there is no objection about. I guess the risk is that this will be a slippery slope and lead to things being done that are actually bad, or maybe that mistakes will be made that cause unintended genetic issues. But if it was possible to use it just for that class of diseases, and the treatments were safe and worked, it would be a good thing.
Aren’t they though? Take the example from the article:
Presumably this was considered acceptable because it is something that was able to be done after the baby was born. What about similar, unambiguously deleterious conditions (there are lots of really awful ones) that fall afoul of the broad prohibitions on modifying embryos? At least on paper, this is specifically what the company that the article is about claims its focus is; the stuff no one disagrees that it’s bad to be born with. Like it isn’t very arguable that it’s good for babies to have ammonia in their blood and need liver transplants.
So really at this point the question is only, do we allow the development and use of this technology for the things there is no objection about. I guess the risk is that this will be a slippery slope and lead to things being done that are actually bad, or maybe that mistakes will be made that cause unintended genetic issues. But if it was possible to use it just for that class of diseases, and the treatments were safe and worked, it would be a good thing.