bioethics is still in the paleocene. We cannot even administrate or control GMO's and theres no way to even open a discussion among the potential end recipients (and customers) of the ethics of GMO's in the environment.
gene editing for higher organisms has no controls anywhere. We are pretty at the mercy of bullshit marketing. (Marketers will always post the benefits and never bother us with downsides).
Having said that, however, we should study the hell out of disease control via the editing and CAs enzymes
Since this process ,in nature is an age old tool exclusively used by virus, archaea , bacteria, and phages, we should know that , evolutionarily, most diseases progress via natural "editing" towards a less lethal form. (Killing ones host has negative affects on the virus's weekend).
So, as far as editing to control diseases are concerned, we will merely be speeding up evolution's "apparent direction".
yes , its new, I recall seeing first articles on CRISPR nd cas 9n)
enzymes in Genomics and then Nature, less than 5 years ago(even though the discoverers were puzzling the source" iap
gene spacers". since the early 1990's. the breakthrough in understanding came almost 2 decades later. (I recall the introduction of "knock out genes" in the late 80;s and the clamor that caused.
I do worry about the bioethics thing. SCientists cant all be held in one pen. Look at what happened with "cloning ", wed created some damned monsters , (nothing of any consequence but we probably wont ever see the real monstrosities).
Our technologies have always seemed to outstrip our abilities to demand their ethical use.