On more controversial lines, see this http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/09/06/184853.1 study (N=280,000) that correlates specific genes with IQ.
2) Making it impossible/unbearably expensive for people with genes that are correlated with higher risk of whatever conditions to get health care/insurance.
We need to be really careful with how we talk about genetic insights as we gain more and more understanding, as well as what uses of that information we allow, or we're going to get ourselves into another period of atrocities justified by what boils down to eugenics. Perhaps not on the scale of genocide of entire populations, but still bad enough.
It's only a matter of time before a nation state starts spending a not-so-insignificant amount of money on IVF + DNA-based screening to start picking good genetic offspring for their populace. It's only going to start becoming more and more plausible the cheaper we make this technology.
Very awkward and important questions/decisions await us in the near future.
https://www.nature.com/news/chinese-project-probes-the-genet...
Keep in mind that eugenics, the "old school" version of genetic manipulation, is widely considered a failure, and has a nasty association with certain unsavory leaders that loom large in European/American history (the most notorious one being, um, Hitler). One can say that eugenics has that nasty issue of raw tribalism clouding any potential good judgement. Personally, I would consider the sordid history of eugenics to be a warning sign to everyone in regards to genetic engineering.
The other angle to bring up regarding genetic manipulation of humans, is that genetic manipulation of animals and crops, whether through the old school "selective breeding" or more modern techniques, have not been without unexpected big problems. At the very least, specific health problems have popped up in certain purebreds, and certain bred crops are far more vulnerable to being wiped out by single parasites (eg: our "perfect bananas" have this nasty tendency to keep getting wiped out by the Panama disease). Biodiversity is also the reason that in-breeding of humans is widely looked down upon.
The other ties with the former: it is not impossible for some unsavory leader to take some research, bastardize the science through blinders of tribal instinct, say "Ah! Gene X is the key to IQ!", and do some nasty tribal things "justified" by science. And in the end, get it quite wrong in the end due to lack of biodiversity.
It doesn't take much imagination to think of this scenario. Creating artifical super children that grow up inside a lab and get killed off when convenient is the most common staple in scifi books and movies involving gene editing.
What's more important? Basic human rights for all humans or competitiveness?
I think the US constitution is silent on the subject of genetic research.
> What's more important? Basic human rights for all humans or competitiveness?
If a nation is uncompetitive, it won't matter in the long term what it thinks about human rights, as that nation will will be out-competed by other natinos that are more competitive.
It is worth remembering that China is a highly ideological society with blinders and "PC" of its own, and is not entirely uninfluenced by Western priorities.
Are gene-modded babies going to have genetic compulsions that make them predisposed to propaganda and suggestion? Biological kill-switches?
There's a lot of good and a lot of bad that is going to come out of these technologies.
This hypothetical doesn't make sense in the face of robotics. If people are around, they are because they are useful.
Unless one sees all governments as benevolent agencies that are truly "of the people, by the people, and for the people", this is a distinction to be wary of.
You don't need DNA tests, or even knowledge of the concept of DNA, to participate in a genetic arms race. DNA tests were not necessary to produce dogs that would rescue drowning humans or cows that would produce incredible amounts of milk. They also aren't necessary to produce "good genetic" humans.
To which the response could be: "You can't perform logical reasoning? Must not have gene B!"
I'm not a biologist, but reading this sounds more like a few years till mass market, not the ominous "30 years" you hear when people really have no clue how long it's going to take :-)
At every step of the way it becomes slightly more acceptable to push the boundaries just so slightly.
[1] Been the case for many decades now in the case of sickle-cell anaemia, this affects partner selection. In the last decade selection against mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 i.e the "breast cancer genes", has lead to searches for egg donors. Also, some people with history of severe depression that runs in the family are self selecting against child bearing (this selection is more common among females).
[2] This could even be pseudo-science at the beginning.
[3] Sperm and egg banks already allow for a crude version of this.
[4] Either natural or synthetic.
If we define beautiful as having blue eyes and blonde hair, of course beauty is genetic! That's equally analogous to how we define intelligence and find it similarly heritable. More work needs to be done on the former before we can for sure talk about the latter.
Twin and adoption studies have never been reliable. They have ranged from dubious methodology to outright fraud such as in the case of Cyril Burt.