GM Food bad: GM Babies ok?

UK says it is okay to edit genes to make designer babies.

long and complicated.

The only opposing voice notes that people don't want GM food, as if adding vitamin A to rice or insect resistance to corn is equivalent to experimenting on embryos.

un, not really.

GM food, if done the right way, has the potential to increase yields and lower the use of chemicals/herbicides/pesticides. (if done the wrong way, expect superweeds. I am ignoring the hysterics who worry about GM food as dangerous: men have been manipulating plants naturally for 20 thousand years, and properly done, GM food is just a faster way to do this).

GM babies to fix a damaged gene sounds good, and would be morally acceptable, until you realize two things:

One: it means a lot of excess embryos discarded and the abortion or even infanticide of infants where it didn't work properly. (of course, no one gets upset about 100 thousand babies in freezers left over after in vitro fertilization, but that only shows how callus the procedure has made the country).

Two: It could lead to designer babies, super babies, and other experiments to manipulate mankind (think Brave New World). Risking the child's life to save it is one thing: Experimenting on a child to fulfill the vanity of parents or scientists is another.

and again, we see the idea that "extra" embryos are destroyed, and that if something goes wrong, the child would be aborted or (in the brave new future) killed at birth.

The manipulated genes would be passed on to the next generation.

The use of "CRISPR" to cut and past genes has been touted as a cure all:

But recent studies show that there are problems.

from SCIENCEALERT:

"Once we realised the extent of the genetic rearrangements we studied it systematically, looking at different genes and different therapeutically relevant cell lines, and showed that the CRISPR/Cas9 effects held true." Those effects included large deletions or mutations that happened even several thousand DNA bases (aka kilobases) away from the target site where CRISPR/Cas9 was used to make the edit.

in other words, it caused mutations elsewhere where the scientists didn't want to change those genes.

So what could go wrong?

Not only could such significant mutations of the DNA code have potentially harmful effects – by disrupting healthy gene and cellular functioning – but the researchers warn that standard DNA genotyping assays may not ordinarily pick up on these mistakes. In the worst-case scenario, if such mangled edits were introduced into humans in a CRISPR/Cas9 treatment, important genes might end up being switched on or off, which could make for potentially serious health consequences.

in other words, all sorts of gene related disease and cancers could be the side effects.

------------------
update: Another gene editing program is hyped in this article.

Scientists have discovered a gene-editing technology that could efficiently and accurately correct the genetic defects that underlie certain diseases, positioning the new tool as the basis for the next generation of genetic therapies. This editing platform may be used to cure inherited and acquired diseases. The proof-of-concept study spotlights a promising new gene-editing platform that may eventually be used to treat diseases such as sickle cell disease, hemophilia and other genetic disorders.

after lots and lots of hyping, you read:

Chatterjee and her colleagues still have much work to do to characterize how this platform works and to develop it into therapeutics. They will address these questions in future studies.

duh. so a very very early study that may or may not work is hyped as a cure all...