I think it's fine.

If ethical restrictions should be placed on it, it should be because of negative consequences we want to avoid. Calculating consequences is notoriously difficult though, so probably because of that reason alone, we should exercise some restraint.

But in essence tinkering with genes is not that different from the selective breeding we have been doing for millennia. We have been selecting plants, animals and even human partners in a quest to produce some kind of result in the offspring. The only difference is that we could presumably do it with a lot more precision now and actually have some notion of what we are doing.

So you know, the question is why would unknowingly fumbling around with selection be better than more conscious and precise selection? In principle it isn't, would be my answer.

The reason to exercise restraint anyway, is more of a general objection to any potent technology.... because it implies a lot of power, and so it creates bigger rifts between haves and have nots. That is a problem, not necessarily because of the nature of said technology, but more because of the nature of our societal organisations which seem to tend to inequality and all the problems that come with that.

Another more general objection would be that we are simply not mature/smart/wise enough as societies to deal with technologies that are this powerful. These technologies, may have some advantages, but they also multiply risks. If we don't have sufficient organisation to deal with those, it would seem a bad idea to mess with them.

As for your last question, that is a very interesting one, but also exceedingly difficult, and I see no good way to sensibly think about it. In part we are a product of evolution and the way we think about things, what we value is informed by what kind of biology evolution happened to give us. We are viewing things from within evolution, and cannot do otherwise really... but to answer that question sensibly it would seem we need a perspective from outside? It's like trying to measure something without a fixed measuring-standard.

So you know, the question is why would unknowingly fumbling around with selection be better than more conscious and precise selection? In principle it isn't, would be my answer. — ChatteringMonkey

In principle, it may not be. In results, it certainly is. Nature selects for what is most likely to survive and thrive. Man selects with quite different motivations, and I find some of them suspect. It's okay to select out hemophilia - though nature would have done that faster, left alone - but I doubt it's a good idea to select out heavy melanin pigmentation, in a warming world.

The reason to exercise restraint anyway, is more of a general objection to any potent technology.... because it implies a lot of power, and so it creates bigger rifts between haves and have nots. — ChatteringMonkey

I don't see how that's going to get any worse through medicine than it's already getting through politics and economics.

Another more general objection would be that we are simply not mature/smart/wise enough as societies to deal with technologies that are this powerful. — ChatteringMonkey

That's it, the big question. What if it gets away from us? What if it's suborned by the evilest entities among us? Or the least socially responsible? What kind of monsters will be created? For what purposes?

We are viewing things from within evolution, and cannot do otherwise really... but to answer that question sensibly it would seem we need a perspective from outside? — ChatteringMonkey

We have to use imagination. There are plenty of departure-points. What do people who resort to artificial insemination ask for? What do Couples hiring a surrogate mother demand? What were the bad old eugenics programs aimed at? The most nearly perfect, healthy, clever, beautiful, talented, potentially successful baby they can possibly get. Superman and Uberwench. Will that generation of perfect children also be bred/spliced for empathy, fairness, humility, affection, generosity, aesthetic sensibility?

In principle, it may not be. In results, it certainly is. Nature selects for what is most likely to survive and thrive. Man selects with quite different motivations, and I find some of them suspect. It's okay to select out hemophilia - though nature would have done that faster, left alone - but I doubt it's a good idea to select out heavy melanin pigmentation, in a warming world. — Vera Mont

I don't think we can know the results for certain. I also don't know if nature selecting is something we should necessarily aim for.... at this point we are a large part of nature anyway.

I don't see how that's going to get any worse through medicine than it's already getting through politics and economics. — Vera Mont

Don't you see how inequality might get amplified by virtue of some people having access to it and others not?

That's it, the big question. What if it gets away from us? What if it's suborned by the evilest entities among us? Or the least socially responsible? What kind of monsters will be created? For what purposes? — Vera Mont

Yes agreed, what are the risks and can we deal with them is the question.

We have to use imagination. There are plenty of departure-points. What do people who resort to artificial insemination ask for? What do Couples hiring a surrogate mother demand? What were the bad old eugenics programs aimed at? The most nearly perfect, healthy, clever, beautiful, talented, potentially successful baby they can possibly get. Superman and Uberwench. Will that generation of perfect children also be bred/spliced for empathy, fairness, humility, affection, generosity, aesthetic sensibility? — Vera Mont

I can see the relatively small changes like removing diseases, or giving someone more of a desirable trait... but even there, there would already be a lot of disagreement in what is actually desirable. Where it becomes really difficult is when to decide what to do when and if we get beyond human. Sure we can imagine a variety of things, but how do we decide and maybe more importantly who decides?

What do you think about tinkering with genes? How do you feel about it? Are the thoughts and feelings reconciled? — Vera Mont

It seems to me humanity has entered a new technological phase which I think will be more far reaching than the industrial revolution. More or less suddenly we find ourselves capable of modifying the very grounds of our existence. We can destroy the world we live in with nuclear weapons. More and more countries are obtaining those weapons. We can change the foundation of our biological and genetic identity, creating diseases either unintentionally or as weapons, perhaps even creating artificial life. Our transportation system has created a world where we are in closer and closer touch with every other part of the world so that diseases that start in one area can rapidly spread all over the world. More than a million people have died of covid here in the US. We are building machines that may be able to gain wills and intellects of their own. We have overtaxed our environment to the point it is uncertain whether or not it will be able to support our current populations.

It's a dangerous time. Humanity has shown over and over it is not capable of controlling the effects of technological progress. Time after time the scientific and political establishment has lied and obfuscated for short term gain at the expense of long term well-being. Being fearful, or at least skeptical, of genetic technological progress is a reasonable response. Be that as it may, I am skeptical that attempts to reign in our scientific and technological institutions is even possible. I am afraid for my children.

I am afraid for my children. — T Clark

I don't have that problem anymore: my children are in their middle, most powerful years, among the decision-makers. And they have - to my way of antiquated thinking, made many of the wrong ones. Now, I can fear for their children, who are in their teens and who will inherit... the wind?

Personally, I don't think it matters very much what's done with genetics, because I don't believe the future of our kind of society is long enough to affect the world more than we already have.
But many people believe in the future; many believe we will just keep on keeping on in the same path. I was wondering what they thought about this branch of science - but they don't seem particularly interested...
(....or else there's nobody here but us old curmudgeons. Ain't that a scary thought?)

I don't have that problem anymore: my children are in their middle, most powerful years, among the decision-makers. And they have - to my way of antiquated thinking, made many of the wrong ones. Now, I can fear for their children, who are in their teens and who will inherit... the wind? — Vera Mont

My children are in their 30s and early 40s. They are what is important in my ife. I have no grandchildren and probably won't. I want them to have safe happy lives.

Personally, I don't think it matters very much what's done with genetics, because I don't believe the future of our kind of society is long enough to affect the world more than we already have. — Vera Mont

I hope you're wrong.

So do I.

Moral, ethical, practical, political... -- all kinds of questions arise from what happens in laboratories and factories Some of what has been done has proved to be very beneficial, some of it has proved to be very harmful. Generate your own positive and negative list.

There is an unfortunate reason why we do not put a stop to potentially dangerous activities (like modifying the human genome, like burning mega billions of tons of fossil fuel):

The time frame in which we can think and act meaningfully about risk is short. This is the case whether it involves our personal behavior or the activities of large institutions. We just didn't evolve the capacity to act upon consequences that are only 50 years away from fulfillment. And that is under the best of circumstances.

Global heating was a problem about which we had time to do something 50 years ago. Unfortunately, we just couldn't react in a meaningful way to the heat forecasts of the (then, next; now, this) century. The mid-century mark is only 27 years away.

So, thinking about potentials for harm from genetic research fits right in here. Genetic alterations will have long-term consequences -- perhaps very beneficial, perhaps not. If the negative consequences show up in the first 3 to 5 years, perhaps the brakes can be applied. If the bad consequences won't materialize for perhaps 3 human generations out -- roughly 100 years -- then we will worry about it later. Maybe in 50 years -- by which time it will be too late.

Throw in financial incentives for doing risky research... it's likely to be a done deal.

Genetic alterations will have long-term consequences -- perhaps very beneficial, perhaps not. — BC

Depends on the species. Do it on microbes and the results are very quick: biological weapon in fifteen minutes; global pandemic in two years.

But there are lots of benefits that happen very quickly, too. If we splice out the gene that causes Huntington's disease, it will have results immediately, but they won't be seen at all: the people who would have had it will simply live normal lives.