**TL;DR: Whilst gene editing can eliminate diseases and birth defects, the ethics of genetic modification in babies need to be considered.** Scientist [Dr Kevin Smith] (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-50460721) has claimed that the risks of gene editing 'were now low enough to justify its use with human embryos', with the attempt less than two years away. Modern scientific studies do show that gene editing is the only way to successfully avoid multiple diseases within the embryo, and 'offer the prospect of protecting future people against common disorders' and diseases that lay dormant for multiple years. The argument of ethics remains on the notion of playing God. Is it morally and ethically right to genetically modify humans with science, instead of letting nature take its natural course? On one hand, genetic modification in babies would delay and avoid terminal diseases and prolong the lifespans of humans, meaning the population overall would be healthier. On the other hand, genetic modification has been criticised in humans as it creates the term coined as 'designer babies' - the thought that if you found out your child was likely to have a disease, you could edit it out to make your child more 'desireable'.

**TL;DR: While genetic modification might have its benefits for individual cases, ultimately a society where it is legal has its priorities wrong.** Genetic modification in babies is ethically extremely problematic and legalising it would be a very bad reflection on our society. - Most obviously, genetic modification on a superficial basis (i.e eye colour, hair colour, IQ etc.) is very problematic, as it is fueled by vanity. Being able to choose what traits make a person ‘desirable’ is very dangerous as by implication those traits rejected are deemed ‘undesirable.’ What right have we to judge a lower IQ, sex, skin colour, hair colour or anything else as ‘undesirable'? Genetic modification in this case clearly makes children products which are useful for status and does not respect their humanity. - While genetic modification for health reasons seems like a different ballpark, ultimately similar issues apply as we are judging a person with disability or health issue as ‘undesirable’ by choosing to alter the genes of embryos or eradicate embryos with these issues. While at first it may seem like the kindest thing to make the population healthier, where is the line which says that someone’s natural traits make their life 'bad' or 'unhealthy', or worth any less than someone without any health problems? This issue would only get worse as those with ‘undesirable’ traits become a smaller part of the population, making their differences seem like more of a problem. (The film 'Gattaca' is a great watch for anyone interested in these issues!) Obviously, there are some cases where a disability or health issue clearly makes a person’s quality of life worse, however, there are still question marks about whether genetic modicfication violates the embryo's bodily autonomy, or whether it is ok to destroy ‘spare’ embryos if we instead select those with the ‘best’ genes. Ultimately though, there is no way to establish this line clearly. - Ultimately, even in very tricky cases where health issues and disability are involved, a society that legalises genetic modification is a dehumanising one. While genetic modification may seem positive and kind in some cases, a society that allows genetic modification of embryos with health issues to be commonplace also says that these lives are worth less than those without, and does not prioritise caring for and supporting people who are most vulnerable, in favour of eliminating them from society.

**The implications of heritable gene modifications are unknown and could have widespread detrimental effects on communities and populations.** Genetically modifying an embryo means that every cell in the baby that grows up will have the modification - including the eventual adult's reproductive system; in other words, the modification will be _heritable_. In 2018, Dr. He Jiankui used [CRISPR gene editing technology](https://www.livescience.com/58790-crispr-explained.html) to make a human embryo better equipped to fight HIV. He was the first to genetically edit babies and was sentenced to 3 years in prison for practicing illicit science. The genetically-modified twin girls from his work, protected by their anonymity, are somewhere out there today. According to the [New York Times](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/30/business/china-scientist-genetic-baby-prison.html), there may have even been a third child. What was so wrong about Dr. Jiankui's science? His work involved couples in which the man had HIV while the woman did not, intending to prevent their offspring from contracting the virus. - Besides the current illegality of the procedure, as well as any social implications of editing out and selecting human traits, genetically modifying an embryo results in an individual whose germ cells, or sex cells, possess the same modifications. - Heritable human genome editing, or HHGE, has unknown biological consequences as the GM baby's future offspring carry the edits with them. We have no way of knowing what the impacts of these propagated modifications will be on the human population, and this means that any potential dangers won't reveal themselves until it's too late. - Given the nuance and intricacy of the human genome and the interactions of the innumerous proteins in our cells, there is immense potential for a modification to have unintended consequences. _"Human embryos whose genomes have been edited should not be used to create a pregnancy until it is established that precise genomic changes can be made reliably and without introducing undesired changes - criteria that have not yet been met."_ Source: [a report](https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25665/heritable-human-genome-editing) from an international commission of the U.S. National Academy of Medicine, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the U.K.’s Royal Society. At least until we can ensure the safety of the modifications and iron out the social considerations, the genetic modification of human embryos should not be permitted.

The question of whether genetically modified (GM) babies should be illegal involves weighing ethical, safety, and societal concerns against potential medical benefits. For: Ethical Concerns: Many worry about the morality of altering human embryos, including the potential for “designer babies” and exacerbating social inequalities. Safety and Unknown Risks: Genetic modification in humans is still experimental and may have unforeseen health consequences that could be passed to future generations. Slippery Slope: Allowing GM babies might lead to non-therapeutic genetic enhancements, raising questions about where to draw the line. Against: Disease Prevention: Genetic modification could eliminate serious inherited diseases, improving quality of life and reducing healthcare burdens. Scientific Progress: Banning GM babies outright could hinder medical advancements that benefit humanity. Parental Autonomy: Some argue parents should have the right to choose genetic modifications to improve their child’s health or traits.