No matter how unethical the common public decries it as, as soon as the technology becomes available there will be people trying to genetically engineer a 'super soldier'. The sheer amount of money put into professional sports and military technology is an indicator that if the technology exists, there will be people willing to take the chance. You just have to genetically engineer a zygote, implant it into a surrogate mother from a 3rd world country who is willing to do such things for money, and have the baby brought to gestation at a facility in a 'country of convenience' (somewhere in eastern europe, SE asia, etc.). You now have your genetic superbaby.
Similarly as soon as the technology to target and trigger genes for increased intelligence, beauty, immune system, etc. is found, there will be rich parents from all over the world willing to pay top dollar to ensure their child is a perfect beautiful genius, no matter what laws may be in place to stop such genetic tampering. Even if you pass laws in the U.S. and other 1st-world nations, once the technology exists there will be clinics in India, Bulgaria, Georgia, and such places where the genetic treatment can be done.
I realize this technology has great potential to help cure all sorts of genetic and other health problems, but it really is a Pandora's box. Professor Hanson's statement:
"Right now, this is impossible to do - putting a gene into muscle. It's unethical. And I don't think you'd want to do this. These animals are rather aggressive, we've noticed."
seems incredibly naive to me. This is classic Pandora: he has too narrow of an idea of where and how his technology may be used or abused, and that others - even those with similar technical ability - may not share his sense of morality.