Should genetically modifying babies be legal?

The majority of scientists think that this is a bad idea

Question: Should genetically modifying babies be legal?
Position‹2 of 2: No, genetically modifying babies should not be legal
Argument‹2 of 3›: The majority of scientists think that this is a bad idea

We should heed the voices of scientific experts warning against this procedure's possible drawbacks.

The argument

The argument rests on the balance of opinion within science itself. Some scientists perceive human gene editing as an exciting possibility, but many others condemn the practice as extreme, and those who would keep it illegal treat that division as decisive rather than merely interesting. During the Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing, the organisers concluded that a scientist's creation of the world's first gene-edited babies was 'disturbing' and 'irresponsible' – a judgement delivered not by outside critics but by the body convened to consider the field, and directed at work already carried out rather than at a hypothetical. What makes the objection more than professional disapproval, on this view, is the kind of change involved. The Center for Genetics and Society argues that the practice holds the frightening potential to change the inheritable traits of humans: an edit made at the start of a life is not confined to the person who results from it but passes to their descendants, so the consequences of a mistake, or of a choice later generations would not have made, cannot be contained or withdrawn. A procedure with that reach imposes its risks on people who cannot be consulted, and it is on that ground that proponents hold the procedure to warrant widespread rejection. That rejection is registered in law as well as in argument: more than 40 countries have outlawed the procedure, which indicates that the unease within science has been found persuasive by legislators working in very different legal systems. The inference drawn is one about deference. Where a technique's own field expresses a rejection this strong, and where the consequences of proceeding are inheritable and irreversible, the reasonable course is to trust that consensus rather than to override it, and to condemn the practice accordingly. On that basis, genetically modifying babies should not be legal.

Premises

[P1]Many scientists condemn human gene editing as extreme; the Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing called the first gene-edited babies "disturbing" and "irresponsible." [P2] The Center for Genetics and Society warns the practice could alter humans' inheritable traits, and more than forty countries have outlawed it, reflecting a strong scientific consensus against it. [C] Therefore, because the majority of scientists reject it, genetically modifying babies should not be legal.

Counter-arguments

In the past, the scientific community has condemned important medical breakthroughs. Because the majority have rejected progress before, the scientific community's scorn of genetic modification is not a good reason to abandon the project.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The argument assumes that the scientific community's opinion on this matter is trustworthy.