>I realize that scientific consensus is that gene editing should not be permitted to enhance human performance I'd like to know what's scientific about it and

>I realize that scientific consensus is that gene editing should not be permitted to enhance human performance I'd like to know what's scientific about it and who reached that consensus. There are a plethora of things to define before we even begin this discussion. What constitutes an enhancement? Isn't removing recessive genes aka "curing genetic deceases" an enhancement? If some people already have these "superior" genes, is it just to keep others from getting them? Who decides what genes are good or bad anyway? What's fundamentally different between trying to improve the germline by these means and the "natural" way of choosing best mates? We are choosing genes in both cases, in case of CRISPR we are trying to do it with better precision and certainty.