The potential alleviation of suffering is great, the potential suffering is also great. There’s a reason nobody gene edits humans (with one notable exception…), and it’s not because it’s hard to do, I’ll tell you that much.
It’s at least somewhat reassuring that all scientists (except the one notable exception who shall not be named) is taking their time to really understand the implications of the technology.
Gene editing is, like many technologies, a tool, and it must be subject to guidelines and regulations to ensure that it can only be used for good. That much, everyone agrees on. The question that people still need to grapple with is where the line is drawn between acceptable and unacceptable editing.
I will also point out that there are ways to influence your biology without messing with your DNA. And similarly many ways to mess with your DNA that do not carry over to the next generation. All of these fall under the umbrella of gene editing but don’t fit the popular concept of gene editing (germline editing). These techniques are much less ethically ambiguous and many are already being used to help people. Here’s a fun video where a guy transduces a gene into himself to cure his lactose intolerance. It’s gene editing by technical definitions but not the type of gene editing that you’re probably thinking of.
GreenBeard@lemmy.ca 4 days ago
Your question is too broad. It’s like asking if 6 is a lot. Socks? No not really. Murders? Yeah that’s a problem. “Gene Therapy” is a broad category of different potential treatments, different methods, different tools, with different motivations, different consequences, and different moral implications. You’re going to have to narrow your scope to get a meaningful answer.