Regarding the article “Gene Editing in Humans Crosses the Line”, Woodruff correctly argues that CISPR is a new technology and it is too early to draw conclusions, and posits that any gene-editing of humans is unethical. I agree with her first point, but find her second to be cowardly. Gene-screening is already relatively widely available, and the human genes that are most studied and well known are the ones that break in interesting ways. We do not know what genes make one a genius or an Olympian. We do know which ones will leave a child crippled or dead. Is Woodruff so afraid of something she says may come to pass that she would prefer to condemn tens of thousands, that this technology would help, to suffering?

Woodruff also attempts to play on the fear of genetically modified crops as an argument against any sort of genetic modification or editing. Those same crops often mean the difference between having enough food and starvation in many areas of the planet. To fear even the simplest form of genetic modification, selective breading, is to remain willfully ignorant of millenia of history. The side effects of transgenic crops are studied extensively before they are even allowed to be grown outdoors. 

Admittedly, I am a moderate transhumanist, so the idea that we should not change, that we must not change, is completely alien to me. Changes like this will occur, and have occured, and so it behooves us to be aware of these changes and direct them in a constructive manner. If we do not, then these changes will happen anyway.

It will take time for us to understand CISPR properly. Until such time, the proper response is to gather more information, not decry how such research ought not to be done because it might lead to thorny ethical issues.