editing. the chinese academy of medical sciences responded to the controversy in the journal lancet, condemning he for violating ethical guidelines documented by the government and emphasising that germline engineering should not be performed for reproductive purposes. the academy ensured they would "issue further operational, technical and ethical guidelines as soon as possible" to impose tighter regulation on human embryo editing. ethical considerations editing embryos, germ cells and the generation of designer babies is the subject of ethical debate, as a result of the implications in modifying genomic information in a heritable manner. this includes arguments over unbalanced gender selection and gamete selection. despite regulations set by individual countries' governing bodies, the absence of a standardized regulatory framework leads to frequent discourse in discussion of germline engineering among scientists, ethicists and the general public. arthur caplan, the head of the division of bioethics at new york university suggests that establishing an international group to set guidelines for the topic would greatly benefit global discussion and proposes instating "religious and ethics and legal leaders" to impose well-informed regulations. in many countries, editing embryos and germline modification for reproductive use is illegal. as of 2017, the u.s. restricts the use of germline modification and the procedure is under heavy regulation by the fda and nih. the american national academy of sciences and national academy of medicine indicated they would provide qualified support for human germline editing "for serious conditions under stringent oversight", should safety and efficiency issues be addressed. in 2019, world health organization called human germline genome editing as "irresponsible". since genetic modification poses risk to any organism, researchers and medical professionals must give the prospect of germline engineering careful consideration. the main ethical concern is that these types of treatments will produce a change that can be passed down to future generations and therefore any error, known or unknown, will also be passed down and will affect the offspring. some bioethicists, including ronald green of dartmouth college, raise concern that this could result in the accidental introduction of new diseases in future. when considering support for research into germline engineering, ethicists have often suggested that it can be considered unethical not to consider a technology that could improve the lives of children who would be born with congenital disorders. geneticist george church claims that he does not expect germline engineering to increase societal disadvantage, and recommends lowering costs and improving education surrounding the topic to dispel these views. he emphasizes that allowing germline engineering in children who would otherwise be born with congenital defects could save around 5% of babies from living with potentially avoidable diseases. jackie leach scully, professor of social and bioethics at newcastle university, acknowledges that the prospect of designer babies could leave those living with diseases and unable to afford the technology feeling marginalized and without medical support. however, professor leach scully also suggests that germline editing provides the option for parents "to try and secure what they think is the best start in life" and does not believe it should be ruled out. similarly, nick bostrom, an oxford philosopher known for his work on the risks of artificial intelligence, proposed that "super-enhanced" individuals could "change the world through their creativity and discoveries, and through innovations that everyone else would use", highlighting not only a personal but societal benefit. many bioethicists emphasize that germline engineering is usually considered in the best interest of a child, therefore associated should be supported. dr james hughes, a bioethicist at trinity college, connecticut, suggests that the decision may not differ greatly from others made by parents which are well accepted – choosing with whom to have a child and using contraception to denote when a child is conceived. julian savulescu, a bioethicist and philosopher at oxford university believes parents "should allow selection for non‐disease genes even if this maintains or increases social inequality", coining the term procreative beneficence to describe the idea that the children "expected to have the best life" should be selected. the nuffield council on bioethics said in 2017 that there was "no reason to rule out" changing the dna of a human embryo if performed in the child's interest, but stressed that this was only provided that it did not contribute to societal inequality. furthermore, nuffield council in 2018 detailed applications, which would preserve equality and benefit humanity, such as elimination of hereditary disorders and adjusting to warmer climate. philosopher and director of bioethics at non-profit invincible wellbeing david pearce argues that "the question comes down to an analysis of risk-reward ratios - and our basic ethical values, themselves shaped by our evolutionary past." according to pearce,"it's worth recalling that each act of old-fashioned sexual reproduction is itself an untested genetic experiment", often compromising a child's wellbeing and pro-social capacities even if the child grows in a healthy environment. pearce thinks that as technology matures, more people may find it unacceptable to rely on "genetic roulette of natural selection". conversely, several concerns have been raised regarding the possibility of generating designer babies, especially concerning the inefficiencies currently presented by the technologies. bioethicist ronald green stated that although the technology was "unavoidably in our future", he foresaw "serious errors and health problems as unknown genetic side effects in 'edited' children" arise. furthermore, green warned against the possibility that "the well-to-do" could more easily access the technologies "..that make them even better off". this concern regarding germline editing exacerbating a societal and financial divide is shared amongst other researches, with the chair of the nuffield bioethics council professor karen yeung stressing that if funding of the procedures "were to exacerbate social injustice, in our view that would not be an ethical approach". social and religious worries also arise over the possibility of editing human embryos. in a survey conducted by the pew research centre, it was found that only a third of the americans surveyed who identified as strongly christian approved of germline editing. catholic leaders are in the middle ground. this stance is because, according to catholicism, a baby is a gift from god, and catholics believe that people are created to be perfect in god's eyes. thus, altering the genetic makeup of an infant is unnatural. in 1984, pope john paul ii addressed that genetic manipulation in aiming to heal diseases is acceptable in the church. he stated that it "will be considered in principle as desirable provided that it tends to the real promotion of the personal well-being of man, without harming his integrity or worsening his life conditions". however, it is unacceptable if designer babies are used to create a super/superior race including cloning humans. the catholic church rejects human cloning even if its purpose is to produce organs for therapeutic usage. the vatican has stated that "the fundamental values connected with the techniques of artificial human procreation are two: the life of the human being called into existence and the special nature of the transmission of human life in marriage". according to them, it violates the dignity of the individual and is morally illicit. a survey conducted by the mayo clinic in the midwestern united states in 2017 saw that most of the participants agreed against the creation of designer babies with some noting its eugenic undertones. the participants also felt that gene editing may have unintended consequences that it may be manifested later in life for those that undergo gene editing. some that took the survey worried that gene editing may lead to a decrease in the genetic diversity of the population in societies. the survey also noted how the participants were worried about the potential socioeconomic effects designer babies may exacerbate. the authors of the survey noted that the results of the survey showed that there is a greater need for interaction between the public and the scientific community concerning the possible implications and the recommended regulation of gene editing as it was unclear to them how much those that participated knew about gene editing and its effects prior to taking the survey. in islam, the positive attitude towards genetic engineering is based on the general principle that islam aims at facilitating human life. however, the negative view comes from the process used to create a designer baby. oftentimes, it involves the destruction of some embryos. muslims believe that "embryos already has a soul" at conception. thus, the destruction of embryos is against the teaching of the qur'an, hadith, and shari'ah law, that teaches our responsibility to protect human life. to clarify, the procedure would be viewed as "acting like god/allah". with the idea, that parents could choose the gender of their child, islam believes that humans have no decision to choose the gender, and that "gender selection is only up to god". in 2020, there has been discussion about american studies that used embryos without embryonic implantation with the crispr/cas9 technique that had been modified with hdr (homology-directed repair) and the conclusions from the results were that gene editing technologies are not mature enough currently for real world use and that there is a need for more studies that generate safe results over a longer period of time. an article in the journal, bioscience reports, discussed how health in terms of genetics is not straightforward and thus there should be extensive deliberation for operations involving gene editing when the technology gets mature enough for real world use where all of the potential effects are known on a case-by-case basis to prevent undesired effects on the subject or patient being operated on. social aspects also raise concern, as highlighted by josephine quintavelle, director of comment on reproductive ethics at queen mary university of london, who states that selecting children's traits is "turning parenthood into an unhealthy model of self-gratification rather than a relationship". one major worry among scientists, including marcy darnovsky at the center for genetics and society in california, is that permitting germline engineering for correction of disease phenotypes is likely to lead to its use for cosmetic purposes and enhancement. meanwhile, henry greely, a bioethicist at stanford university in california, states that "almost everything you can accomplish by gene editing, you can accomplish by embryo selection", suggesting the risks undertaken by germline engineering may not be necessary. alongside this, greely emphasizes that the beliefs that genetic engineering will lead to enhancement are unfounded, and that claims that we will enhance intelligence and personality are far off – "we just don't know enough and are unlikely to for a long time – or maybe for ever".