This was discussed extensively in two different steroid threads.
You imply risk. Gene manipulation will change the face of evolutionary advancement and disease every bit as much as antibiotics. I'm not so sure there will be substantial risk. In many ways, I'd think there would be less risk than today's technologies (fewer side effects, allergies, and so on).
Ultimately, gene manipulation will cure any number of diseases, and, as I've said before, technology, in and of itself, is typically not either bad, nor good, but, just is.
Gene manipulation, can, and will, allow us to re-invent the species, as we now do with animal breeding programs.
Ultimately, the question really isn't about risks, because, if you think about it clearly, they'll likely b e lower than current technology, just as medical technology has advanced in the past, but, rather, the question will probably end up being, who gets to decide?
If a fat person can be fat (arguably and enormously risky behavior), folks can have elective surgery, you can get botox, then, shouldn't something of lower risk be allowed?
We've known for a long time now that androgens, and their health benefits, far exceed their risks, and the risks of being overweight, and inactive, or smoking, or even taking pain relievers, but, yet, we'd put folks in jail just for injecting something (testosterone) which is perfectly natural and endegeneous to their bodies.
The issue becomes who gets to be in charge?
Science will advance, with, or without, the approval of law.
We arguably have some huge double standards: women with broken faces, fake tits, estrogen, implants, liposuction, and yet, testosterone is taboo. Go figure.
I suspect gene manipulation will also become a playground for the "haves" rather than main-stream. Time will tell.
Myostatin inhibitors are on their way! Google on myostatin and on "Superbaby" to read more about it.
Certainly being fat, and eating fried foods, are much riskier behavior than even most drugs we take, but, weren't not yet putting those folks in jail.
To answer your question: there's not enough information to answer the question in a qualified fashion. I don't yet know the "risks".
I've seen androgens add years and quality to the lives of many folks over the years, and I think most folks would say the risks are highly overstated (and most studies continue to say that, and in fact are echoing the positive effects of their use).
Because 35% of all folks are weak-minded, it often hard to tell how things will go.
Because the risks are unknown, your question is not answerable.
Myostatin inhibs will cut both ways: for folks with horrible disease (a problem with myostatin) they'll be cured; for a bodybuilder, it'll mean about 70% more muscle.
I disagree with how folks try to attach a moral distinction to chemical manipulation of appearance, but, surgery is ol.k.? Or botox? Or implants? Go figure.
Would I do mysotatin inhibs, if I felt the risk was acceptable? Yes. Couldn't be much worse than being around smokers.
