> Among the concerns expressed by many of us was that if heritable genome editing were allowed to proceed without careful deliberation, the enormous potential of non-heritable genome editing for prevention and treatment of disease could become overshadowed by justifiable public outrage, fear, and disgust.
This style of writing where you pretend to share the concerns of the public, while primarily looking for ways to evade that concern, really irks me. Over which type of editing would the public be outraged, in their scenario -- heritable or non-heritable? If the justifiable outrage is over heritable editing, then why assume that would obstruct work on non-heritable editing? Do they not think that people outside their circle are able to understand the difference? Or is there a risk of one leading to the other? If the justifiable outrage is over non-heritable editing, then how can it have enormous potential? Is it right to describe procedures which you agree are disgusting and outrageous as having potential? Potential to do what? Treat people against their will? This whole paragraph comes off as insincere and tone deaf.
This style of writing where you pretend to share the concerns of the public, while primarily looking for ways to evade that concern, really irks me. Over which type of editing would the public be outraged, in their scenario -- heritable or non-heritable? If the justifiable outrage is over heritable editing, then why assume that would obstruct work on non-heritable editing? Do they not think that people outside their circle are able to understand the difference? Or is there a risk of one leading to the other? If the justifiable outrage is over non-heritable editing, then how can it have enormous potential? Is it right to describe procedures which you agree are disgusting and outrageous as having potential? Potential to do what? Treat people against their will? This whole paragraph comes off as insincere and tone deaf.