One ethical theory that may be important and useful to consider is utilitarianism. A utilitarian standpoint may provide counterarguments to my thesis. Utilitarianism is about what will give the most people the most happiness. In other words, what will increase the total ‘amount’ of happiness in the universe (Driver, 2009). Restrictions put into place on the use of gene editing (i.e. only using it in labs) will mean that less people will have access to it. If we allow gene editing to be used outside of the lab, more people are likely to get valuable life- saving treatment. This means that there should be no restrictions and gene editing should be permissible for use outside of the lab. More lives saved means more happiness for more people, which is what utilitarianism is all about. However, as we have explored in previous paragraphs, if access to gene editing has less restrictions, there is always the risk that it will be used for designer babies, for example. Not only have we seen how likely this is, but we have also explored the consequences of this. Potentially, restricting gene editing for medical research in a lab may give more people more happiness, as here it is always going to be used to save lives.

Libertarianism is a concept that also may be used to oppose this thesis, and more specifically, why it should only be used for medical treatment. Libertarianism is a philosophy that strongly promotes freedom among people (van der Vossen, 2002). While altering the appearance of babies in a test tube may have societal consequences, restricting the many uses gene editing has and only allowing it to be used for medical research and treatment may also restrict the freedom of parents to have their child look or act the way they want them to. After all, while it may result in the consequences explored previously, it is the parents’ choice at the end of the day. It is similar to the idea of parents shaping the way their children think and behave. The main difference being that this is to do with their appearance. On the other hand, it could be argued that this restriction may be a good thing, as 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 a