That's a pretty good word for it. Another would be "immoral."
But note how a top medical geneticist categorizes it: "premature." That's it: germ-line eugenics, which is what this is, is not immoral. Just "premature."
Yet another totalitarian trend. They're everywhere.
In any event, it's a gigantic potential market, so most likely, as my late undergrad advisor and historian of biology Will Provine told me in 1988, it'll come, no matter what, presuming, as always that we don't kill ourselves off first. Or barring a countervailing social movement against it.
Here is the Council for Responsible Genetics position paper on germ-line manipulation from 2001. As noted in the segment above, with reference to scientific issues, the two key terms are "development" and "pleiotropy." We don't know, and may never be able to know, the massively complex interdependence of genes and their products, let alone how all that develops from fertilization through adulthood, such that we can safely start fucking around with genes in germ-line eugenics.
This is before any moral or sociopolitical issues are brought into the discussion, mind you. And that is why you see this mindlessly over-simplistic "gene x-causes-trait y" bullshit in the PR of geneticists, et al, who not only should but also do know better. (Such bullshit is also known as "genetic determinism," and it's scientifically wrong.) And always wrapped up in discussions of awful (and rare) genetic diseases with smiling children on their way to an early death: "emotionally potent oversimplifications" designed to "manufacture consent." PR, in other words. Propaganda.
And there's a shit-ton of money in this, potentially, with just about all top geneticists involved in private firms, start-up or not. I'm sure that plays no role in the "confusion" being sowed.
Well, if we stay capitalist, you can be sure that the genome, now a "commons," will be "enclosed," commodified, manipulated, bought, and sold. No matter what happens in future generations, who will have to look to themselves.
If anyone's both interested and can actually read, I'd go read up on Richard Lewontin's work. Not in Our Genes would be a good place to start.
But no one reads this blog, and any who would won't bother. Better to stick with the emotionally potent oversimplifications--and, after all, Doug, how can you be against saving the lives of innocent children????????