McCRISPR and the Collective Sanctimony of the Scientists Who Made it Happen

I don't want to add too much to the obvious ethical lapse of the recent CRISPR human guinea pig experiment by Chinese genetic scientist, He Jiankui, as there is an endless stream of outraged scientists, exemplified by this article in Nature: CRISPR-baby scientist fails to satisfy critics. I would, however, like to make a point about the collective scientific outrage, exemplified by a few quotes in the article linked above:

“I’m happy he came, but I was really horrified and stunned when he described the process he used,” says Jennifer Doudna, a biochemist at the University of California, Berkeley, and a pioneer of the CRISPR–Cas-9 gene-editing technique that He used. “It was so inappropriate on so many levels.”

So, it was "the process he used" rather than what he did.  If only he had used a more appropriate process.  Let's look at another quote:

“Having listened to Dr. He, I can only conclude that this was misguided, premature, unnecessary and largely useless,” she says. 

So if it was "post-mature" or "necessary" or "useful", it would be guided instead of misguided?
In other words, no one seems to be directly opposed to this, only to his jumping the gun or maybe beating them to it.  And there's this:

Fears are now growing in the gene-editing community that He’s actions could stall the responsible development of gene editing babies. In a lecture on the second day of the summit, ahead of He’s talk, Daley urged support for pursuing germline gene-editing research despite recent events. “It’s possible that the first instance came forward as a misstep, but that should not lead us to stick our heads in sand and not consider more responsible pathway to clinical translation,” he said.

So, looked at for what it is, I'm seeing a bunch of angry scientists who are more angry that someone else started doing this before they had the opportunity, in an irresponsible manner that might hurt their chances to do it in the future. 
In short, I'm not impressed with this sanctimonious grandstanding from scientists who have been cranking out experiments to identify genes for intelligence, tallness, happiness and other "desirable" traits as if someone isn't going to start doing exactly what He did.  It's like a bunch of scientists inventing more and more lethal weapons and throwing their arms in the air when a war breaks out.  It's disingenuous.  you reap what you sow.  You have been sowing for decades...
One aspect of this that isn't discussed much is what I will refer to as the likely McCRISPR revolution.  As I have tried to point out on this blog, much of this stated genetic research is sketchy, to say the least, with endless genetic variants linked to traits that rarely replicate.  The market will be open for anyone naive enough to believe that some mad scientist can make their child smarter, taller, funnier, etc.  It's hard to know what the consequences will be to children experimented on like this, but I suspect the people benefitting most from all of this are the charlatans who are willing to engage in this kind of quackery.