> My concern would be that we might be unable to distinguish useful genetic adaptations from disease. How do we actually make these decisions? Examine the DNA a

> My concern would be that we might be unable to distinguish useful genetic adaptations from disease. How do we actually make these decisions? Examine the DNA and then look for SNPs of concern? Is that a perfect process, or one dominated by statistics? How likely is it that this method will arrive at the expected goal? For a good example of where this can wrong and have unintended side effects, look at the babies that had their genetics edited with CRISPR by He Jiankui. Their genes were edited to make them less susceptible to HIV, yet that genetic modification has biological consequences[1][2] outside of preventing HIV, as the edited gene coded for a receptor protein on cells. Many factors were overlooked when doing the gene editing[2], and the kids' genes were edited both incorrectly and not optimally. The edits also affect their germline, meaning that their future kids could potentially inherit similar genetic errors. As a result, the HIV susceptibility "benefit" might not actually be so beneficial, and even if it was, there are strains of HIV that don't use that receptor protein as vector for infection, as well. Research has even suggested that they might be more susceptible to HIV, now, and that their particular mutations could result in shorter lifespans than people without the mutations. I wouldn't feel too well about having my genome botched for profit before I was even born, learning that I have an outdated version of an edited gene that might kill me, and being told that my kids would potentially inherit some alpha version of a gene that doesn't even work right. The same feelings would apply to lab selected natural mutations, as well. I think we're at a stage where we do not have a complete, or even satisfactory, understanding of our genome and biology, and the same goes for both our understanding of gene editing and selection, and their consequences. For example, we have a very primitive understanding of how the brain works, and editing, or selecting, genes that are expressed in the nervous system could have serious deleterious effects, which is something that is hypothesized to have accidentally happened with the CRISPR twins[3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5#Potential_costs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5#Potential_costs [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_Jiankui_affair#Scientific_basis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_Jiankui_affair#Scientific_b... [3] https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/02/21/137309/the-crispr-twins-had-their-brains-altered/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/02/21/137309/the-crisp...