I like the expression, I believe attributed to Alan Kay (but I could remember incorrectly), saying "when we think we know what we're doing, we don't know what w

I like the expression, I believe attributed to Alan Kay (but I could remember incorrectly), saying "when we think we know what we're doing, we don't know what we're doing". By no means am I per se opposed to exploring gene editing technology, but the gleeful enthusiasm for use of this nascent technology seems to be neglecting due diligence to make sure that we "above all do no harm". The history of medicine is chock full of instances where researchers and clinicians alike jump on it with both feet, only to be dismayed when eventually finding out about risks not initially known or adequately appreciated. I'm no expert in genomics (though a good friend of mine is), but it's easily apparent that we know very little about the implications of discoveries made every day. At the least, a note of caution before plowing ahead, and modifying things we know little about makes sense. No doubt I have much to learn on these subjects, but I don't think I'm alone in that. The issue for the field may best be summarized by the idea of "premature optimization", painting ourselves into a corner from which no easily extricated. Sure gene editing is a very enticing prospect. I'd call it a fantastic research tool, and in that respect let's use it to the hilt. But applying it to real clinical situations before having much more knowledge about the risks (and you know it's inevitable there will be "side-effects") seems to me to be foolish, and maybe even embodies a measure of hubris.