I think the main ethical dilemma comes in with stuff like deliberately stunting the kid (there's persistent stories of parents getting their kid's pituitary gland removed for example and even if That's just a rumour it is something to pre-empt) rather than either improving or horizontally changing things.

The question of unequal access is divorced from it. It's not desirable that I can afford a new kidney and my neighbor doesn't but that doesn't make kidney transplantation bad.

I think having a 45 -99 year moratorium on introducing new sequences rather than switching off/on existing ones is a good compromise both from the perspective of research and societally.

For example: If there's someone with perfect pitch in the family tree we can switch on those sequences or we can guarantee you inherit your grandpa's timeliness.

Things like that. If it's in there we can make sure it gets expressed.