CRISPR unlike fire, a gun, bleach etc isn’t extremely harmful to human cells, we’ve used it to edit people’s DNA before. Ex: https://www.science.org/content/article/crispr-helps-blind-w...
So objecting because it needs to be injected into a human isn’t a relevant critique here.
Fire or chlorine are immediate and obvious. They can kill a person, but they can't modify one's behavior, identity (biometrics), or progeny, and all without either the victim or anyone else having any way to find out who did it or when, or even neccessarily detecting that anything was ever done at all.
Crispr is infinitely more dangerous than any gun.
It's equally powerful for good, but that just makes it worth it, it doesn't make the danger from unintended harm or intended harm go away, and the risk itself is a harm.
I am absolutely in favor of using crispr to fight hiv, or any other good purpose it can be used for.
But that comic was not necessarily inapplicable. As implied, what happens in a petri dish really doesn't mean much.
It also was not necessarily pointful because although it's true the petri dish doesn't really prove much, it's also true that you have to go through a petri dish stage before you can get to the actually useful human stage, and so there is nothing wrong with celebrating the potential stepping stone or milestone and nothing gained by shitting on it.
It almost seems like with every technology there is a side that goes all in, risking mass suffering (i.e: AI, Crypto), and a side that abstains completely repeaing none of the benefits (i.e: banning GMO.)
It is almost like electing old, unqualified politicians doesn't yield good or speedy regulations.