allowing the parents to have free reign over their children’s genetic traits and enhancements may result in problems arising, with the aforementioned negative consequences outweighing the parents’ satisfaction. Furthermore, while we say that allowing the parents to change their children is free will, we also need to consider the free will of the child that is soon to be born. If the child does not like the changes that were made to them, this will result in conflict. While gene editing is reversible, as recently discovered (Frederick, 2021), this is still likely a long process that the child has to undergo. Additionally, maybe it is not safe to allow this free will over the distribution and use of gene editing technology. According to a study conducted by the University of Missouri-Columbia, most teenagers prioritise appearance over health (University of Missouri- Columbia, 2012). While libertarianism means the people can choose what they do with CRISPR/ CAS9, in the grand scheme of things, it is more important that people stay healthy. This is why so many anti- smoking campaigns are promoted by governments around the world, for example.

To conclude, it is very rare that a discovery as revolutionary as gene editing graces the field of genetic research. However, using it for personal gain and for one’s own vanity will undermine the potential for greater good. If gene editing remained purely for medical use, it will have a much more widespread impact on the world around us. It should also be kept exclusively in the laboratory, as there will be accessibility issues, if, for example, it is patented, and less people have access to it. There are many issues associated with how it will likely be used by people, so I argue for increased regulation of the distribution and the access of this technology, even if that may involve gene editing only being used in the laboratory for medical research.