content: Even if you can remove specific "problem" genes, you're reducing the overall gene pool, minimizing vectors for future mutation, and you risk short-sighted decisions having long-reaching consequences. Some genes are "diseases" or "unclean". Some are just inefficient in a modern environment. ADHD is hypothesized to be an adaptation beneficial for hunter-gatherer societies. In agricultural societies, and cities, it becomes much less useful and indeed a hinderance. But would you want to eliminate ADHD from the gene pool? Many sufferers would volunteer, even without a mandate, to have their ADHD cured or to not pass it on to their children. So what happens down the line when that gene would be useful again? If we hit the point where we can remove and add genes freely, and choose our own modifications, it may not be that big of a problem, but it will still present moral issues. Additionally, until we reach that point, our best bet for removing a gene will be selective embryo implantation, exactly like GATTACA, which can't control for every sequence but can rule out specific sets of genes. While better than mass sterilization, it's still crude and will lead to unforseen consequences as we bridge the gap to full genetic control. We should at least wait for full sequencing before we start tampering. There are many questioned that need to be answered before we jump onboard. I only hope no corporations find a way to monetize services like this before we can plan ahead.