An artist’s rendering of the powerful genome editing tool, CRISPR-Cas9. (Stephen Dixon/ )

THE 1997 FILM “Gattaca” predicted a near future in which cities are powered by vast solar thermal arrays, humans launch manned missions to Saturn’s moons, and doctors design super smart and strong babies. A generation later, it is the gene editing that is proving most prescient.

Over the past decade, huge advances in gene-editing techniques have enabled researchers to slice up and rewrite DNA with incredible precision. At the forefront of the ensuing revolution is the CRISPR-Cas9, a technology derived from bacteria that enables scientists to snip and repair DNA, nucleotide by nucleotide, quickly and cheaply. The potential uses are vast. And so are the ethical quandaries.

The National Academies of Sciences and the National Academy of Medicine convened a panel to recommend guidelines for the use of powerful gene-editing tools. The results, released this week, are thoughtful and should — for the moment, anyway — channel research and testing in unambiguously positive directions.

CRISPR can be used in basic laboratory research, revealing how disease works on the molecular level. This is similar enough to other types of lab research that it requires no novel scientific or ethical standards. Researchers can also treat live humans with gene editing technologies, for example by taking immune cells out of the body, altering them and re-inserting them to fight an advanced cancer. Therapies such as these are already under development, and although researchers have to be cautious about “off-target” gene slicing, existing rules governing the development of medical treatments should suffice.

The ethics get much trickier when researchers want to change the DNA in reproductive cells, which would alter the genes that parents pass to children, forever. Doing so could prevent vast amounts of human suffering. But there is a problem of consent: Future generations have no say in their alteration. Disability communities would no doubt feel threatened and stigmatized, because gene editing could be used to essentially remove their type from the gene pool. Changes made to enhance human offspring, rather than simply to combat disease and disability, could redefine what it means to be human, while those to whom these techniques are unavailable would risk becoming a genetic underclass. A line would have to be drawn between heritable changes that are clearly valuable and those that risk unnecessarily humiliating people, destabilizing society and changing the nature of humanity.

The panel attempted to draw a preliminary line — and put it in the right place. Heritable changes should be attempted only when scientists are convinced that specific genes cause or strongly predispose people to getting a serious disease or a condition, and when they know what normal genetic code should look like. They should only intervene when there are no reasonable alternatives available to families, and when real-world evidence shows that the benefits outweigh the risks.

The debate will not — and should not — end there. But before society has a full chance to process these questions, the panel’s approach is the right one. The goal should be to stop crippling diseases, not to build designer babies.