Be that as it may, as in all scientific research, many ethical dilemmas accompany the usage of the CRISPR/Cas9 system and whether its benefits outweigh its risks. Especially when considering the magnitude of the potential damage to its recipients, being human or non-human, and the environment. Unfortunately, such a deleterious risk was identified within the first experiment trial on embryo’s, executed by Chinese scientist led by Junjiu Huang in 2015, collaborating with other researchers publish a paper in the journal ‘Protein and Cell’. Reporting on applying the tool on nonviable human embryos previously rejected for in vitro fertilization use, hinting at CRISPR-Cas9 potential to cure any genetic disease. However, were met with limited success correcting the genetic defect causing the disease. Further research from the US National Library of Medicine shows how this is due to an alarming frequency of off-target effects found in the embryo cells2. As a result of various identical or highly homologous DNA sequences to the target sequence located in the genome3. This close resemblance increases the chance of the CRISPR/Cas9 system to cleave these unintended regions of DNA causing mutations which may cause cell death or transformation.Leading to the embryos not being permitted to develop beyond the very early stage. Thus, the researchers concluded to constrain its usage for clinical use, making them to stop the trials prematurely. Nonetheless this experimental technology is currently still far from clinical use, yet cannot be denied its promising potential in the future. As efforts have been made to reduce off target mutations, discovering new variants of CRISPR-Cas9 with exceptional precision, yet still further improvement is needed, especially for precise modifications needed for therapeutic interventions.Likewise, another predominant ethical concerns raised regarding CRISPR-Cas9 circulates around experimentation of the human germline.Emerging only recently as genome editing was only performed on somatic cells in all previous human therapeutic interventions which is ethically accepted. Considering its balanced risk with benefits and the use of informed consent. Until Huang’s and his collaborators embryonic experimentation erupted discord over the feasibility of disrupting the human germline.Unlike the somatic cells an edited gamete, a fertilized egg or embryo, can carry modified traits through their offspring to successive generations via linked hereditary16. This is problematic, as the CRISPR-Cas9 system can produce off-target mutations leading to side-effects, transmitting unpredictable changes to successive generations after initial gene editing. Making it successively harder to eradicate later, endangering our spices. Provoking concerns on how to implement consent when there are risks and effects that could be transmitted to several generations. Subsequently, making scientist’s to come to similar conclusions to the Chinese researchers supporting basic research on the CRISPR-Cas9 system in somatic cells, but acknowledge that its not developed enough for clinical usage and inheritable changes to humans. Another article published in 2015 published by ethicists and legal experts David Baltimore and a group of scientists, noted how editing the germline raises the possibility of unintended consequences for future generations “because there are limits to our knowledge of human genetics, gene-environment interactions, and the pathways of disease.”. However, religious barriers will also be considered when building the ethical framework of this technology, as it can be perceived as going against divine command.One report revealed that in 2015 the International Summit on Human gene editing concluded to support further clinical research under appropriate legal and ethical, though prohibited the modification of gametocytes or embryos to promote inheritable changes to the human germline claiming it was “irresponsible”. Yet in February 2016 a news article stated that the British scientist were permitted by regulators to genetically alter human embryos with CRISPR-Cas9 and related techniques for research only. However, again in 2015 a calling for a moratorium, in a statement issued by the US National Institute of Health, demanding for NIH-funded research on genome modification in human embryos prohibition. Demonstrating the legal and ethical ordeals associated with this controversial technology, and the contrasting attitudes different nations concur to.Therefore, the adjustment of humans through modification of human embryos has been put on hold. This utilitarian ideology deems the risk of genetic mutation greater than its possible benefits of therapy, more likely to harm recipients, affecting the principle of nonmaleficence. Furthermore, if potential damage were to take place, whom make liable for the damage for following generations would be obscure. Nonetheless the eventual progression of this technology to appropriate safety bounds to allow clinical applications to treat genetic diseases, will evoke further discussion, considering legal, social and ethical implications and the required regulatory frameworks to avoid abuses of germline editing.Another ethical dilemma is the non-therapeutic genome modification with CRISPR-Cas9. Currently the use in germline editing is banned for safety reasons. However, intervention has taken place as Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) granted a licence to Kathy Niakan of the Francis Crick Institute in the UK, to investigate the CRISPR-Cas9 on embryos to draw out issues in these early stages of development that can lead to miscarriage and other reproductive problems.Illustrating how safety may no longer be a permanent constraint as the technology develops which will lead to the inevitable possibility to intervene with somatic cells to promote genetics to our social interests. Theoretically, marking the new era of designer babies. Altering vanity traits governed by a small number of genes would be the most straightforward to manipulate, such as muscularity, eye colour, height; as well as gender and race. Arguably halting variation and interdependence within our spices; as parents impose their ideals of perfection on their children. Driving the fear creating a world in which we will discriminate against non-perfect humans as we pre-select sociatol features; as well as widening the already substantial gaps between the wealthy and poor. Howbeit, as discussed in the Science News magazine, designer babies may become morally mandatory, some ethicists say, becoming immoral for parents to deny their children the chance of being ‘perfect’. Deterring many from indulging in such a ‘god-like’ science.On the contrary denying sick individuals with the seemingly only possible cure may be perceived as adversely deplorable.Subsequently, the development of ethical and regulatory frameworks will have to be introduced as unlike curing disease, genetic enhancement can be viewed as morally reprehensible. Nonetheless, other reports show the contradictory views (STate names) of some geneticists, as complex traits like intelligence require the configuration of hundreds or thousands of genes, each of which have a minute effect. Therefore, attempting to edit all of them appears implausible. And since are genome is all intertwined it may be impossible to change one trait without affecting many others.