It can be unethical, yes. Here are some possibilities:
For thousands of years, humans have felt the need to understand the world around them—and ultimately manipulate it to best serve their needs. There are always ethical questions to address, especially when the manipulation involves the human genome. ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
First, the ethics of the researcher under discussion - two embryos were implanted and the babies subsequently born "but it does not appear that they made an effort to fully understand the actual effect of the alterations they had made. With all of the risks associated with the CRISPR editing process, embryos should not be implanted if the scientists are unsure of the effects."
Also discussed, among other issues:
2.6.2. Socioeconomic disparities
Multiple polls have shown that the majority of people around the world are opposed to the use of genetic engineering of embryos for enhancement, such as athletic ability and intelligence, or for altering physical characteristics, such as eye color and height.
89 It is easy to conceive of the risk of a new age of eugenics.
But even the application of genetic modification to address medical needs holds the potential for establishing inequality. The technology will remain incredibly expensive for some time, prohibitively so for most people. CCR5 edits lie in an ill‐defined area between medical need and enhancement; an unfair health advantage will be established if such modifications are only accessible to the wealthy. Other kinds of edits may mean the difference between life and death; should potentially life‐saving therapies only be available to those with financial means? Put another way, should those individuals on one side of the growing socioeconomic gap be the only ones protected from the suffering that comes with illnesses such as Alzheimer's disease, Huntington disease, or cystic fibrosis?
2.6.3. Possible stigma
Especially while the concept is still novel, it is difficult to predict how society will feel about gene‐edited babies. Will Nana and Lulu face any sort of backlash? Conversely, if and when gene editing becomes commonplace, will there be a stigma associated with
not having been edited in some way, such as still being susceptible to various infectious diseases? Might children like Lulu be less accepted for not carrying a desired modification? He wanted to spare HIV‐infected individuals’ children the stigma and discrimination their parents endured;
90 it is possible that having edited genes has replaced one potential stigma with another.
2.6.4. Insurance
Because gene editing will be a tool to cure and prevent illness, insurance coverage will be an important part of the conversation. First, will insurance cover the editing itself? If so, will germline versus somatic cell editing be an important distinction? Will coverage be based on the targeted illness or disability (and expected associated costs)? And who will decide which edits are considered medically necessary and which are considered elective?
Once babies born from edited embryos are born, more questions arise. Will those whose genes have not been edited to prevent certain illnesses be considered to have preexisting conditions? Will they be expected to pay more for coverage? On the other side of the coin, will those who have had their genes edited (especially when the technology is first rolled out) pay more because of possible off‐target risks or potential negative consequences of editing (eg, the increased susceptibility to influenza associated with CCR5 editing)?
