I don't think what you've framed is a scientific question. The scientific convergence would be: can we figure out how CRISPR works, and the aspects of genetics and whatever else underlie it? Whether and when to use it is another, non-scientific, matter.

That's a deep question and it can illustrate what they mean about both markets and science, as well as what they do not mean.

CRISPR is the technological result of scientific investigation into a bunch of different fields: genetics, physics, chemistry, etc. If CRISPR actually works to eliminate these conditions, that means our understanding of empirical reality is closer to the truth than it used to be.

If people choose to pay whatever the market price is for the use of CRISPR to eliminate these conditions, that means their preference for avoiding these conditions is greater than their preference for what they could have otherwise done with the resources exchanged to pay for CRISPR. That was a mouthful, but it's just the idea of opportunity cost. It means putting resources towards producing CRISPR services, instead of whatever else those resources might have gone towards, more effectively meets people's preferences. That's the reality of scarcity and subjective values.

What neither science nor markets are doing is evaluating whether it is morally good to use CRISPR in that way. Morality is not empirically observable and it is only imperfectly reflected in people's subjective values.

"Long run" is a vague enough concept as to be almost unfalsifiable. However, the way we use the concept in economics is that in the long run everything becomes variable. That means government pressure is not fixed in the long run. Once that pressure changes, if not before, the correction will come.