We reasoned that the players in this simulation are researchers, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the United States federal government, American doctors, American hospitals, parents, gene-edited children, and non-gene-edited children. We focus on if parents will allow pre-natal gene editing in cases where the child has what the National Institutes of Health define as a, “rare genetic disease.” There are cases where parents abort their offspring because there is a certain percent chance that the offspring will develop a rare genetic disease, and the parents are trying to prevent their child from suffering for the rest of his/her life. We convert that choice from "will the parents abort or keep said child" to "will the parents edit the child's DNA to allow him/her to live, or will they allow the child to die?"
We use Gallup poll statistics concerning the percentage of Americans who are in favor of /who are against abortion as a proxy for the number of Americans who would approve or disapprove pre-natal gene editing. We are not saying that every person who is in favor of abortion will be in favor of prenatal gene editing and vice-versa; it is our best approximation we have. Moreover, abortion is an incredibly divisive operation every American knows. We are confident to say that not as many Americans are aware of gene editing to the extent that they are aware of abortion. Therefore, we assume that America's public awareness of prenatal gene editing in the future has reached abortion's current public awareness level in the United States.
We arrive at the conclusion that the parents, of children who would have a rare genetic disease, are faced with a prisoner's dilemma. Parents, in the pursuit of what they believe is best for their children, would decide to have the operation with the intent of maximising their utility. As some early-adopters choose to have the operation, other parents are more likely to have the operation done as well.