I don&#x27;t think it&#x27;s any different from many things we already do that are considered &quot;right&quot;.<p>&gt; Changing your genes that may introduce defects to your offspring<p>Is it wrong for someone who has a genetic disorder to breed?  What about cases where both parents are carriers of a recessive genetic disorder, which gives the child a 25% chance of expressing the disease and a 50% chance of being a carrier themselves?<p>&gt; altering yourself in a way that invites a communicable disease to take hold, optionally mutate, and begin infecting others.<p>Again, this isn&#x27;t something we consider morally wrong.  Is it morally wrong to let your basement be damp and grow mold?  Sure, it&#x27;s stupid, but is it morally wrong?  Is it morally wrong to have unprotected sex?<p>We generally consider an action&#x27;s morality based on the intent.  If your intent is to spread disease, it&#x27;s wrong.  If you had a different intent, but didn&#x27;t realize the consequences you&#x27;re not considered to be wrong.<p>I think the more compelling argument is, what happens to people who don&#x27;t want to alter their DNA if this actually works?  If this is allowed in sports, much like steroids, other athletes will be compelled to undergo treatment just to remain competitive.  If we can make people smarter, then people who won&#x27;t undergo treatment could be relegated to doing menial tasks simply because they won&#x27;t edit their own DNA.<p>To add another interesting corollary to that, what about people that won&#x27;t do it for religious reasons?  I know some people who oppose any kind of genetic alterations for whatever reason because it violates &quot;God&#x27;s design&quot;.  I&#x27;m sure someone will call it discrimination when they have to flip burgers because they haven&#x27;t undergone treatment to have an Einstein level IQ like the rest of the workforce.