I don't think I like that take. Attempts to restrict the spread of knowledge usually don't work long-term, and often result in bad actors working in secret. Some proposals relating to AI recently have had similar traits.
"5. Disseminate GWAS findings to the general public"
the 4th point is the only one that concerns limiting usage, and that clearly suggests researchers may seek to to prevent commercial use of their results unless the commercial use is vetted and useful.
The bigger problem with this approach is that it’s simply not science. Science doesn’t involve prescribing a correct “ethical” interpretation of your research findings. Science doesn’t involve cultural and ethical overseers ensuring that your findings fit within some moral framework. What happens when the findings themselves are deemed unethical? They will be withheld from publication? They will be used to influence public policy without any opportunity for public scrutiny? They will have a correct interpretation prescribed for them that caries the weight of scientific fact?
If I convinced an ethics committee that locality violations were unethical, it would not be science for me to publish research that said my findings could not possibly be used to support quantum non-locality, or that my findings don’t actually reveal locality violations for ethical reasons, and that this interpretation is the only scientifically correct one. Using ethics to define an experiment is one thing, but involving ethical considerations in the research process, and the interpretation of your findings is simply anti-scientific.