Can you give a source for your assertion that "we have the technology to detect those"? That sounds hand wavy. I am not aware of a complex system where that kind of thing exists predictably. Especially when you're doing editing that will permanently affect the gene line, I'd say predictability is impossibly if not in theory, computationaly.
You're right, it's a little hand wavy, but we can fully sequence the DNA we extract; so I guess it depends on the error type, if there is an error that is only present in some DNA strands, that could be problematic.
Re:Update: CRISPR
by maxerickson on Sunday March 12, 2017 @05:20PM
(#13853195)
You've seen discussions where people aren't concerned with the risks?
People usually think about societal issues, or the editing technology failing, not that the unintended consequences of our edits due to a weak understanding of what genes code for and how they really interact.
Re:Update: CRISPR
by maxerickson on Sunday March 12, 2017 @05:55PM
(#13853360)
Unintended consequences is one of main arguments raised against genetic engineering in general.
The editing has errors, but we have the technology to detect those, so it's really only a cost increase.
The more concerning issue for anyone who might want to do this is that AFAIK our understanding of what these edits do is pretty limited, so for things like known diseases it may be worth the risk to choose embryos or make edits, but for things that are more marginal, the risk might not be worth it and this may have a drag on people wanting to use the tech, even when it works great.