Current guidelines around gene editing deal with this problem by limiting gene edits to only those introducing alleles already prevalent in the population. This restriction is also good from a safety perspective since there is much less risk when introducing common alleles to an embryo than when working with very rare alleles (such as ones that could potentially protect against Alzheimer's or heart disease). The genetics of the heart problem associated with the MYBPC2 mutation are very well known. At the moment, the genetics of traits like intelligence and height are not well understood enough for us to be able to reliably enhance these traits through gene editing. Yet the same technologies have also given us nuclear energy, vaccines, and fertilizers. Regarding the last point, here's a nice piece from Radiolab about Fritz Haber, whose Nobel-prize winning work on the Haber-Bosch process for synthesizing ammonia allowed the world to feed itself, but who also helped the Nazis develop chemical weapons: http://www.radiolab.org/story/180132-how-do-you-solve-problem-fritz-haber/ Technologies can do either good or evil. I think it's better to regulate the people using the technologies than to ban the technologies altogether.