Paraphrase and summarise, please keep the numbers in the brackets:

Question

A number of organizations and experts have called for an international moratorium or ban on heritable genome editing (13, 14, 48, 57, 66, 67, 103). Although
less discussed to date, an international moratorium or ban might also be considered for genetic
enhancement. The proposals for a ban or moratorium generally do not specify who would implement and enforce such a restriction, but presumably an international organization such as the
United Nations would be tasked with the responsibility to adopt and enforce a ban. The history
of adopting such bans or moratoria on biomedical interventions through international organizations such as the United Nations is not encouraging. For example, in the early 2000s, there was
a concerted effort to adopt a ban on human cloning through the United Nations that ultimately
floundered over questions such as defining the precise procedures to be banned and how the ban
would be enforced (16, 51). The Council of Europe’s Oviedo Convention is a pre-CRISPR treaty
that bans heritable modification and genetic enhancement, but it has only been ratified by some
European nations and no nation outside of Europe (32).
The central argument for a ban is that “the value of genome editing to the small number
of families potentially benefitting from this technology does not warrant the risks to the edited
children, the burdens to society for development and oversight, and the risks to society through
its misuse” (13, p. 487). A permanent ban is a drastic remedy that has been applied in only a few
circumstances involving highly unethical products or activities, such as biological weapons and
land mines. Many nations and scientists, while opposing any use of heritable gene editing at this
time, have not indicated a commitment to support a permanent ban of such procedures (64, 66).
A moratorium differs from a ban in that it is not permanent, but can be reconsidered at one or
more times in the future. A time-limited moratorium is more in line with the existing consensus
that human heritable editing should not be attempted at this time. Many professional societies
have called for a voluntary moratorium by scientists (45, 57, 89, 98), but implementing such a
moratorium would require determining how long it will last and/or under what criteria it will be
lifted, and on these issues there is likely to be less consensus. If the moratorium were established
for a fixed period of time, then the situation may be no different when it expires; conversely, the reasons for the moratorium may dissolve before the scheduled end date arrives. Alternatively, the
moratorium could last until specified criteria are achieved, but this may require designating some
body to make that determination, which could be difficult and controversial (2).
Some critics have opposed a moratorium or ban as lacking credibility or enforceability, even if
the goals are worthy (2, 3, 24, 39, 64, 87). Other critics contend that a moratorium or ban is not
needed and that a better governance approach is to specify the criteria that would have to be met
before heritable editing could proceed, and to avoid using the loaded words moratorium or ban,
which have historically been associated with unduly restrictive policies (3, 20, 24). This was the
approach taken by the two international summits (30, 83) and the National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine report (82).

Answer 1

Several organizations and experts have advocated for an international moratorium or ban on heritable genome editing (13, 14, 48, 57, 66, 67, 103), and there are suggestions for similar restrictions on genetic enhancement. While the proposals do not clarify who would enforce such measures, it is likely that an international entity like the United Nations would be responsible. Historical attempts to establish bans, such as a UN ban on human cloning in the early 2000s, have struggled due to challenges in defining procedures and enforcement (16, 51). The Oviedo Convention from the Council of Europe prohibits heritable modifications and genetic enhancements but has been ratified only by certain European nations and none outside Europe (32).

The primary justification for a ban is that the potential benefits for a limited number of families do not outweigh the risks posed to the edited children, societal burdens for development, oversight, and the potential for misuse (13, p. 487). Permanent bans are reserved for egregiously unethical practices, like biological weapons, and while many oppose heritable gene editing now, few countries or scientists support a permanent ban (64, 66).

In contrast, a moratorium is temporary and allows for future reconsideration, aligning more with the current consensus against human heritable editing. Various professional societies have encouraged a voluntary moratorium (45, 57, 89, 98), but establishing its duration and criteria for ending it may pose challenges and lead to disagreements. A fixed-term moratorium may not address the same issues upon expiration, while a criteria-based approach could necessitate appointing a deciding body (2).

Some critics argue that moratoriums or bans are not credible or enforceable, despite their noble intentions (2, 3, 24, 39, 64, 87). Others believe that a more effective governance strategy entails specifying criteria for proceeding with heritable editing rather than using the contentious terms "moratorium" or "ban," which may evoke overly restrictive policies. This perspective was reflected in two international summits (30, 83) and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report (82).