What I would worry about is:
a) Short term suffering from failed experiments.
b) Reduced genetic diversity as everyone scrambles to get "the best" genes.
And the truly bad mutations should self-correct before passing to subsequent generations.
That's an awfully euphemistic way to say "The kids'll die before they grow up."
I'm not necessarily for gene editing. I think it is probably a long-term certainty and a net good, but it makes me uneasy because it is one of the maybe-this-one-ends-humanity style technologies. That being said, the suffering that a gene edited baby and its parents go through is meaningful - we learn from it, we improve. At the moment if a baby is born with random congenital problems there is similar suffering and it is completely pointless; we don't really learn anything or change anything.
When both paths lead through suffering, anyone who knowingly chooses the path of greater long term suffering is a monster. Even if they want to claim they are acting for some sort of moral reason. We can't get hung up if a few children die when dealing with technologies of this consequence. There are just more important issues to work through.
Are you suggesting that we should prohibit these babies from reproducing when they reach adulthood? If not, how do you suggest we prevent harmful mutations from being passed on with "screening"?
I wouldn't be surprised if more advanced methods exist either; as a carrier for a rare genetic disease maybe I should figure this out.
We can only have a scientifically constructive discussion within the context of a concrete, particularized therapy--disease, editing vector, gene, etc. Even then it's difficult, but at least you can reach a point at which you can agree to disagree on an actual, concrete scientific question. Everything else is philosophy and politics.
I think what people are trying to justify is an a priori assumption that gene editing (or germline editing if they're a little less cautious) is special and distinct. But I don't think you can scientifically justify that distinction from a harm avoidance perspective. Just because the technique is medically and scientifically distinguishable doesn't mean it's analytically distinguishable. And of course one of the principal drivers of these therapies, at least initially, is stopping the types of mutations that are feared but which already exist in nature.
So it's simply a belief that you hold; full stop. It's a legitimate belief, and may even be strongly informed by science, but it's like believing in God or aliens or the utility of Mars colonization--we might as well just put labels on our foreheads so we know where the argument will end up without actually having to argue. Knowing the other person's starting point, and assuming the best versions of their likely arguments, most of us here can arrive at the other person's conclusions independently.
Gene editing is special and distinct, in the sense that the genome is a complex and nonlinear system, where small errors can be amplified into large consequences, not only local, biological consequences but social as well. In cases where technology offers such potentially extreme leverage, it is scientifically justifiable to tread cautiously to avoid great harm.
In Complexity Theory, one of the defining behaviors of "complexity", in addition to nonlinearity, is a tendency to return to a quasi-equilibrium state even though it can never reach, let alone stay, at an actual equilibrium. Absent the dual (dueling?) tendencies of spontaneous change and regression, you have by definition either chaos or stasis.
2) Vaccinations, not to mention treatments like antibiotics, have resulted in accelerated mutation of disease. It's a serious concern and a growing problem in ways both predicted and unpredicted.
And, yes, these have occurred together.
We can argue in circles all day, unless you can point out some novel effect, even hypothetical, that hasn't already been reported in the literature or debated to death. Arguing that it's "too dangerous" is fair. You just can't argue that reasonable people can't disagree on that score.
I imagine at some point these tests, as well as more precise ones, are likely to become standard procedure for all pregnancies, in California and everywhere else.
EDIT: I mean comfortable as in willing; not comfortable as in "whatevs".
AFAIU, if the non-invasive tests turn up positive doctors may recommend (and patients may prefer) amniocentesis for confirmation.
I just find it interesting that California would so quickly embrace such new technology. I think it became required about a year or so after the tests hit the market, even before they became widely known (obv still not widely known). But given the rising costs of healthcare, and the incredible amount of public money spent on developmentally disabled individuals[1], it makes alot of sense. For similar reasons, California has had for many years mandatory blood lead testing for all children living in pre-1978 housing. (I think in most states blood lead testing is only mandated through Federal Medicaid regulations, which require testing for child Medicaid recipients.) California's housing and population explosion coincided with peak consumption of leaded paint and leaded gasoline, so California has a uniquely acute lead problem.
[1] California has very generous educational programs for the disabled (generous relative to most states), partially as a result of state-based constitutional precedent. By generous I mean a ton of money is spent as a fraction of overall expenditures, relative to most (all?) other states. This is a smallish part of why in-classroom expenditures seem meager relative to other states. Many parents, OTOH, likely have lesser opinions about how generous the programs really are. But school-based speech and physical therapists, for example, can make a very decent living in California, even in the Bay Area. Better to work through a private contracting firm; working directly for the school districts tends to pay less, though benefits are better. I know at least one serial entrepreneur who started, built-up, and sold two school-based therapy contracting firms, and has already started a third.
That's currently the only reasonable thing to do.
By "short term" you mean "only until the kids die of their mutations"?
It's that all of this is happening within a frame of ignorance with regards to the insane, elusive complexity that is genetics.
Somehow the idea that changing genes at will can be predictable isn't dying off.
Unfortunately, diseases typically run their course much faster than that meaning it would be possible for a disease to devastate a genetically homogenous population before they can raise the next generation and maintain population levels.
It almost reminds me of ...me. "I don't need to study and get good at studying, I just need to get good at self-hypnosis and instruct my brain to absorb things faster and remember things better." Want to know how that turned out? It didn't.
Once a gene is widespread enough, good luck preventing gene carriers from reproducing. Most people won't care enough to screen potential partners, or even worse, it could create social tension.
Just like dog breeding.
And you can judge how much people care about appearances by the success of plastic surgery business.
Rather, I would suggest that the ethical discussion focuses on intended and unintended side-effects of a specific direction of study, and whether the long-term effects can be aligned with healthy societal progress.
Personally, I think that pregestational gene editing doesn't have many secondary benefits, and that the technology, once available, will have a huge negative effect on society (both on the gene pool and on equality). So I would argue against this line of research should be prohibited based on that, not based on the limits of our knowledge.
Besides even if a particular experiment cannot be done because the outcome is uncertain and we can't have certainty without the experiment then that is circular but not circular reasoning. We cannot simply declare something to be ethical purely because declaring it unethical would not allow us to do something.
First you contradict your original dismissal, any negative effects on the gene pool most likely can be solved by more research.
Asserting a negative effect on equality is an equally damaging and incorrect opinion. A similar analogy here would be arguing vaccines should be avoided and prevented because not everyone has access to them, thereby having negative effects on equality
The way the whole thing happened was stupid. It was the wrong population of patients (healthy children), who had other options for avoiding HIV infection (antiretroviral suppression in parents, surrogacy, etc etc). And the fool decided this was the right population in which to employ highly experimental and underdeveloped gene technology? Any scientist with a modicum of integrity or common sense would never have done this. It's just bad science.