If the goal was to prove that CRISPR can be performed safely and reliably in humans I think the first edit should have been in a non-coding segment somewhere fa

If the goal was to prove that CRISPR can be performed safely and reliably in humans I think the first edit should have been in a non-coding segment somewhere far away from genes and gene-regulatory elements; a locus with enough uniqueness (e.g. not a CpG repeat island) to make it extremely improbable that the guide RNA would match another locus resulting in off-target mutations. Why even risk messing around with genes in the very first attempt in humans?? And naturally, like Jiankui, I could be completely off-base (no pun intended), so my biggest qualm was that the decision on where/when/how to edit should have been made by a team of seasoned (perhaps the world's top) geneticists and molecular biologists so they could pool their expertise and come to a consensus. Many people are interested in seeing CRISPR push forward, and mention something like you have: but what about the "knowledge it will provide us for the next iteration". Trust me, I'm just as eager as anyone. However, if this mavrick experiment fails, and something is remotely off about these little girls (u can bet they will be under a constant magnifying glass), this will end up being a huge setback. It will spook the public, and the legislation factory will churn out regulatory policy that nobody wants.