If human disruption helped create the Lyme disease problem, then the first ethical question should be whether the solution requires more disruption or better restraint. The logic of “we already altered nature, therefore we may alter it again” is dangerous because it turns past mistakes into permission slips for future interventions. It also shifts the public conversation away from prevention, habitat management, tick control, deer population management, personal protection, and other non-genetic solutions that may reduce disease without rewriting the inheritance of a wild species.