That's rather flippant, and I'd like to provide a counterpoint. Some neuroscience researchers held a town hall discussion in a major US city and also in a major Chinese city (on two different occasions) about bioethics, and one of the topics discussed was whether it was morally right or wrong (in the case of IVF) to screen for IQ, assuming we had reliable markers. So, same parents, no edits, but out of N embryos, instead of randomly selecting one, you choose one that's likely to be the smartest. Assuming it works reliably, is that wrong?
The U.S. audience was split approx. 50/50, with most of the objections about how it was going against God's will, or that it was "unnatural." The Chinese audience was all for it, and expressed surprise that the U.S. audience was split. Because if you could, and the technique was reliable, why wouldn't you?
Sometimes, it's useful to take a second look at our cultural biases.
