You touch on mandatory vaccination, which is already largely polarized, but what about any of the hundreds of ways you can decrease your immune response that we

You touch on mandatory vaccination, which is already largely polarized, but what about any of the hundreds of ways you can decrease your immune response that we don't commonly talk about? Lack of exercise, overconsumption of alcohol, being overweight, these things all decrease the functioning of your immune system, thus inviting disease. Are they morally reprehensible? And how does one way the cost benefit of the genetic modifications? We already have a substantial number of people on immunosuppressants for transplants, among other things. Is it okay for them to invite communicable disease because they would die otherwise? If so, where is the line where it is acceptable to compromise your immune system? > in which known risks of harms to others exist and are ignored What level of possible risk defines an immoral action? If we compare it to driving, there's a known risk that I'm going to kill someone while driving. With genetic modification, there's a very low assumed risk because we honestly haven't the faintest idea what's going to happen. The assumption of benefit is about the same as the assumption of detriment. > cases where risks of harm exist which would have been discovered with due care and are unknown to the actor due to their lack of concern, are often also considered wrong despite the absence of specific ill intent. This is a more nuanced area, especially in medicine. We have a lot of medical research that was enabled, or greatly hastened, by experiments undertaken with little knowledge of what the outcome would be. This would have the advantage of the subjects providing consent, since they seem to be acutely aware that there could be serious side effects. How far can we go without actually applying this research to people? How long will it take to get there, and how much time will trying the research on people save? How many lives could be saved by trying it on people now? > due care I also disagree with the use of this term. What is "due care", and at what point have you satisfied it? It seems to me that if you get to the point where you know all of the potential outcomes, the value of actually doing the experiment is greatly diminished. From my understanding, it seems highly unlikely for this gene splicing to have a radical effect either way. The two most likely outcomes, I think, are that no noticeable change in expression occurs, or the patient dies.