Still, nice to remind us the technology is here, would love to hear how the kid is doing.
As for the ethics of gene editing itself, the risks of gene editing are poorly understood. Not in that we are ignorant of the risks, but rather that science does not have an understanding of what techniques of gene editing are effective. What therapies are effective. What therapies have side-effects, the intensity and fatalities of these side-effects.
It would be one thing if the dimensions to these risks could be ballparked (e.g. with how HRT for gender affirmation, the risks of therapy vs abstinence are decently understood and communicated to a patient before starting due to the current understanding of the human endocrine system, and the track record of patients in the past). But since the current answers to these questions range from theoretical to mostly unknown, it is difficult to properly convey the risk. And caveat emptor is an irresponsible perspective to have of the risk, as one can not truly consent to a complete unknown; especially on the fetus and future person who has not yet been conceived.
That said, I am in the opinion that in the case a person who understands the risk of no therapy is severe (i.e. a patient with a severely debilitating or fatal disorder or disease) or has a proper understanding of the lack of knowledge and risk of therapy (e.g. a geneticist who reads journals about these particular issues) then one can adequately consent. But the parents in this experiment were neither.
The article doesn’t claim that was the heart of the issue. It lists that as one of a multitude of issues.
You mean advantages, surly?
/s
Objectifying human beings in such a radical way and arrogantly putting the human germline at risk isn't a real-world concern? You have a very strange grasp of real-world concerns.
Because someone is not outraged by what you are is not evidence of disingenuousness.