question: why does the scientific community Frown upon genetically edited babies?
comment: You don't know it'll work and the baby cannot consent, so you're performing a risky and unknown science experiment on a person without their approval. Should you fail, the genetic damage will carry on through their life and possibly to their children. And of course, the eternal eugenics debate when someone tries to make a literal 7 foot tall übermensch.
passages: Editing embryos, germ cells and the generation of designer babies is the subject of ethical debate, as a result of the implications in modifying genomic information in a heritable manner. Despite regulations set by individual countries’ governing bodies, the absence of a standardised regulatory framework leads to frequent discourse in discussion of germline engineering among scientists, ethicists and the general public. Arthur Caplan, the head of the Division of Bioethics at New York University suggests that establishing an international group to set guidelines for the topic would greatly benefit global discussion and proposes instating “religious and ethics and legal leaders” to impose well-informed regulations.
   In many countries, editing embryos and germline modification for reproductive use is illegal. As of 2017, the U.S. restricts the use of germline modification and the procedure is under heavy regulation by the FDA and NIH. The American National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Medicine indicated they would provide qualified support for human germline editing "for serious conditions under stringent oversight", should safety and efficiency issues be addressed. 
   Since genetic modification poses risk to any organism, researchers and medical professionals must give the prospect of germline engineering careful consideration. The main ethical concern is that these types of treatments will produce a change that can be passed down to future generations and therefore any error, known or unknown, will also be passed down and will affect the offspring. Some bioethicists, including Ronald Green of Dartmouth College, raise concern that this could result in the accidental introduction of new diseases in future.
   Social and religious worries also arise over the possibility of editing human embryos. In a survey conducted by the Pew Research Centre, it was found that only a third of the Americans surveyed who identified as strongly Christian approved of germline editing. Social aspects also raise concern, as highlighted by Josephine Quintavelle, director of "Comment on Reproductive Ethics" at Queen Mary University of London, who states that selecting children’s traits is “turning parenthood into an unhealthy model of self-gratification rather than a relationship”. 
   Conversely, several concerns have been raised regarding the possibility of generating designer babies, especially with regard to the inefficiencies currently presented by the technologies. Bioethicist Ronald Green stated that although the technology was “unavoidably in our future”, he foresaw “serious errors and health problems as unknown genetic side effects in ‘edited’ children” arise. Furthermore, Green warned against the possibility that “the well-to-do” could more easily access the technologies “..that make them even better off”. This concern regarding germline editing exacerbating a societal and financial divide is shared amongst other researches, with the chair of the Nuffield Bioethics Council Professor Karen Yeung stressing that if funding of the procedures “were to exacerbate social injustice, in our view that would not be an ethical approach”.
   Many bioethicists emphasise that germline engineering is usually considered in the best interest of a child, therefore associated should be supported. Dr James Hughes, a bioethicist at Trinity College, Connecticut, suggests that the decision may not differ greatly from others made by parents which are well accepted – choosing with whom to have a child and using contraception to denote when a child is conceived. Julian Savulescu, a bioethicist and philosopher at Oxford University believes parents "should allow selection for non‐disease genes even if this maintains or increases social inequality", coining the term "procreative beneficence" to describe the idea that the children "expected to have the best life" should be selected. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics said in 2017 that there was "no reason to rule out" changing the DNA of a human embryo if performed in the child’s interest, but stressed that this was only provided that it did not contribute to societal inequality.
   Section::::Human germline engineering.:CRISPR/Cas9.:Regulation on CRISPR use.
  
  In 2015, the International Summit on Human Gene Editing was held in Washington D.C., hosted by scientists from China, the UK and the U.S.. The summit concluded that genome editing of somatic cells using CRISPR and other genome editing tools would be allowed to proceed under FDA regulations, but human germline engineering would not be pursued.
   When considering support for research into germline engineering, ethicists have often suggested that it can be considered unethical not to consider a technology which could improve the lives of children who would be born with congenital disorders. Geneticist George Church claims that he does not expect germline engineering to increase societal disadvantage, and recommends lowering costs and improving education surrounding the topic to dispel these views. He emphasises that allowing germline engineering in children who would otherwise be born with congenital defects could save around 5% of babies from living with potentially avoidable diseases. Jackie Leach Scully, professor of social and bioethics at Newcastle University, acknowledges that the prospect of designer babies could leave those living with diseases and unable to afford the technology feeling marginalised and without medical support. However, Professor Leach Scully also suggests that germline editing provides the option for parents “to try and secure what they think is the best start in life” and does not believe it should be ruled out. Similarly, Nick Bostrom, an Oxford philosopher known for his work on the risks of artificial intelligence, proposed that “super-enhanced” individuals could “change the world through their creativity and discoveries, and through innovations that everyone else would use”, highlighting not only a personal but societal benefit.
   One major worry among scientists, including Marcy Darnovsky at the Center for Genetics and Society in California, is that permitting germline engineering for correction of disease phenotypes is likely to lead to its use for cosmetic purposes and enhancement. Meanwhile, Henry Greely, a bioethicist at Stanford University in California, states that “almost everything you can accomplish by gene editing, you can accomplish by embryo selection”, suggesting the risks undertaken by germline engineering may not be necessary. Alongside this, Greely emphasises that the beliefs that genetic engineering will lead to enhancement are unfounded, and that claims that we will enhance intelligence and personality are far off – “we just don’t know enough and are unlikely to for a long time – or maybe for ever”.
   The experiment was met with widespread criticism and was very controversial, globally as well as in China. Several bioethicists, researchers and medical professionals have released statements condemning the research, including Nobel laureate David Baltimore who deemed the work “irresponsible” and one pioneer of the CRISPR/Cas9 technology, biochemist Jennifer Doudna at University of California, Berkeley. The director of the NIH, Francis S. Collins stated that the “medical necessity for inactivation of CCR5 in these infants is utterly unconvincing” and condemned He Jiankui and his research team for ‘irresponsible work’. Other scientists, including geneticist George Church of Harvard University suggested gene editing for disease resistance was “justifiable” but expressed reservations regarding the conduct of He’s work.
   PGD regulation is determined by individual countries’ governments, with some prohibiting its use entirely, including in Austria, China, and Ireland. 
   Genetically altered embryos can be achieved by introducing the desired genetic material into the embryo itself, or into the sperm and/or egg cells of the parents - either by delivering the desired genes directly into the cell or using gene editing technology. This process is known as germline engineering and performing this on embryos which will be brought to term is not typically permitted by law. Editing embryos in this manner means that the genetic changes can be carried down to future generations, and since the technology concerns editing the genes of an unborn baby, it is considered controversial and is subject to ethical debate. While some scientists condone the use of this technology to treat disease, some have raised concerns that this could be translated into using the technology for cosmetic means and enhancement of human traits, with implications for the wider society.
   Germline modification is considered a more ethically and morally acceptable treatment when one or both of the parents is a carrier for a harmful trait and is treated to improve the genotype and safety of the future generations. When the treatment is used for this purpose, it can fill the gaps that other technologies may not be able to accomplish. The American National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Medicine gave qualified support to human genome editing in 2017 once answers have been found to safety and efficiency problems "but only for serious conditions under stringent oversight." Germline modification would be more practical if sampling methods were less destructive and used the polar bodies rather than embryos. In 2018, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics issued a report which concluded that under certain circumstances, editing of the DNA of human embryos could be acceptable. The Nuffield Council is a British independent organisation that evaluates ethical questions in medicine and biology.
   The lack of clear international regulation has lead to researchers across the globe attempting to create an international framework of ethical guidelines. Current framework lacks the requisite treaties among nations to create a mechanism for international enforcement. At the first International Summit on Human Gene Editing in December 2015 the collaboration of scientists issued the first international guidelines on genetic research. These guidelines allow for the pre-clinical research into the editing of genetic sequences in human cells granted the embryos are not used to implant pregnancy. Genetic alteration of somatic cells for therapeutic proposes was also considered an ethnically acceptable field of research in part due to the lack of ability of somatic cells to transfer genetic material to subsequent generations. However citing the lack of social consensus, and the risk of inaccurate gene editing the conference called for restraint on any germline modifications on implanted embryos intended for pregnancy.
   The creation of genetically modified humans may have been performed in the mid-1990s, in which a 1997 study published in The Lancet claimed, “the first case of human germ-line genetic modification resulting in normal healthy children.”. In November 2018, researcher Jiankui He claimed that he had created the first human genetically edited babies, known by their pseudonyms, Lulu () and Nana (). Researcher Alcino J. Silva has discovered an impact the CCR5 gene has on the memory function the brain.  Silva speculates the brain function of Lulu and Nana likely has been impacted but that the exact consequences of the edit are impossible to predict. Studies have shown mice who have had the CCR5 gene have shown a marked improvement in the function of their memory and brain recovery after stroke.
   The Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences responded to the controversy in the journal "Lancet", condemning He for violating ethical guidelines documented by the government and emphasising that germline engineering should not be performed for reproductive purposes. The academy ensured they would “issue further operational, technical and ethical guidelines as soon as possible” to impose tighter regulation on human embryo editing.
  
  Section::::Ethical considerations.
   In November 2018, researcher Jiankui He claimed that he had created the first human genetically edited babies, known by their pseudonyms, Lulu () and Nana (). In May 2019, lawyers in China reported, in light of the purported creation by He Jiankui of the first gene-edited humans (see Lulu and Nana controversy), the drafting of regulations that anyone manipulating the human genome by gene-editing techniques, like CRISPR, would be held responsible for any related adverse consequences.
   As a practical matter, however, international protocols on human subject research may not present a legal obstacle to attempts by transhumanists and others to improve their offspring by germinal choice technology. According to legal scholar Kirsten Rabe Smolensky, existing laws would protect parents who choose to enhance their child's genome from future liability arising from adverse outcomes of the procedure.
   The idea of using future ART techniques, including direct human germline engineering technologies, to select and genetically modify embryos for the purpose of human enhancement has been referred to as designer babies, reprogenetics, and liberal eugenics and has been discussed since the introduction of biotechnology in the late 1970s.
   PGD has raised ethical issues, although this approach could reduce reliance on fetal deselection during pregnancy. The technique can be used for prenatal sex discernment of the embryo, and thus potentially can be used to select embryos of one sex in preference of the other in the context of "family balancing". It may be possible to make other "social selection" choices in the future that introduce socio-economic concerns. Only unaffected embryos are implanted in a woman's uterus; those that are affected are either discarded or donated to science.
   In February 2016, scientists at the Francis Crick Institute in London were given a license permitting them to edit human embryos using CRISPR to investigate early development. Regulations were imposed to prevent the researchers from implanting the embryos and to ensure experiments were stopped and embryos destroyed after seven days.
   In February 2019, scientists reported that the purportedly first-ever germline genetically edited humans, the twin babies Lulu and Nana, by Chinese researcher He Jiankui , may have inadvertently (or perhaps, intentionally) had their brains enhanced.
  
  In June 2019, researchers suggest that the purportedly genetically edited humans may have been mutated in a way that shortens life expectancy.
  
  Section::::Gene-editing controversy.
   Human germline engineering is a process in which the human genome is edited within a germ cell, such as a sperm cell or oocyte (causing heritable changes), or in the zygote or embryo following fertilisation. Germline engineering results in changes in the genome being incorporated into every cell in the body of the offspring (or of the individual following embryonic germline engineering). This process differs from somatic cell engineering, which does not result in heritable changes. Most human germline editing is performed on individual cells and non-viable embryos, which are destroyed at very early stage of development. In November 2018, however, a Chinese scientist, He Jiankui, announced that he had created the first human germline genetically edited babies.
   Lee Silver has projected a dystopia in which a race of superior humans look down on those without genetic enhancements, though others have counseled against accepting this vision of the future. It has also been suggested that if designer babies were created through genetic engineering, that this could have deleterious effects on the human gene pool. Some futurists claim that it would put the human species on a path to participant evolution. It has also been argued that designer babies may have an important role as counter-acting an argued dysgenic trend.
   BULLET::::- The European Blind Union has stated its opposition to compulsory abortion for genetic indications in its manifesto: "the right to life shall include the prohibition of compulsory abortion at the instance of the State, based on the pre-natal diagnosis of disability".
  