Ron Bailey has a report on a conference this past weekend.

I believe you mis-linked the article.

I did indeed. It's fixed now, thanks.

I see two related issues here. The conference apparently discussed at length the issue of consent of future generations to germ-line changes. But I think a distinction needs to be made between morally permissable changes and legally permissable changes. Because a key part of this subject seems to be about banning certain types of biological modifications on the the grounds that they aren't morally permissable.

I think there's good reason to stay out of decisions to modify germ-lines and other such things. Namely, it's really not our business to intervene unless direct harm will be commited. So introducing some crippling disease into one's descendants (say to insure a particular life experience on all descendants) would reasonably be illegal. But mere cosmetic changes (like blond hair and blue eyes) would not. Even though a future descendant might disapprove of this change, it's not the business of society to ban it.

A reasonable case could be made for imposing a waiting period and education on the costs and benefits for nonessential germ-line changes. Ie, people need to demonstrate that they know the rules of the road and are sufficiently physically fit before they can drive a car. No reason that you couldn't institute a similar test to confirm that people understand the consequences of germ-line changes. In particular, it avoids the issue of society deciding whether or not a particular change is indeed morally permissable.

For example, it may turn out that people require extensive genetic modification to live in low gravity environments or to adapt to certain forms of sophisticated technology. Germ-line modifications to make those changes inheritable is a natural next step.

There are a group of people, "furries" enamored with various sorts of atavistic (animal-like) body forms. Sooner or later, a few of them will genetically design their bodies to incorporate features from other animals (tails, horns, fur, tentacles, whatever). And if Mommy and Daddy look like pandas, then there's a great case for the kids to inherit those traits as well. It's obviously not remotely airtight since at the least being a panda-human isn't likely to be socially or biologically compatible with the vast majority of humanity. And there may be other sorts of harm incured by the descendants (it'll take a high level of competence with this sort of technology to eliminate most harmful biological consequences).