According to Catholic Bioethics are mRNA vaccines a transhumanist slippery slope?

The National Catholic Bioethics Center considers what I think is a straw-man argument against people who reject mRNA vaccines on ethical grounds because they're transhumanist. > Myth 1: For vaccines that rely on injecting patients with mRNA, the possi­ble incorporation of these genes into our genetic makeup will fundamentally alter who we are as humans, moving us into a project of Transhumanism, the production of a “Human 2.0,” etc. > > Reply: Any incorporation of new genes into our chromosomes from a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine would be an exceedingly rare occur­rence, if it were to occur at all. It is actually very difficult to get the ge­netic information of mRNA to in­tegrate into our chromosomes, partly because this would mean a reverse directional flow of the so-called Central Dogma of Molecular Biol­ogy: our DNA or chromosomes are read (“transcribed”) to produce mRNA, which is then read (“trans­lated”) to make proteins. Even if the accidental and unintentional incorporation of an mRNA mes­sage into our chromosomes were somehow to occur following vaccination, this would not mean that we were creating “Human 2.0,” since those genetic changes would not be expected to affect our sex cells, and therefore would not be transmitted to the next generation. Vaccinating people with an mRNA vaccine for COVID-19, therefore, does not imply that we are “remaking man” or heading down the path of Transhumanism. > > https://www.ncbcenter.org/making-sense-of-bioethics-cms/column-182-covid-19-vaccine-myths My problem with this statement is that they consider only what is actually happening this year, not the ethics of the abstract idea of mRNA treatments. (i.e., this is what I'd like to ask the Catholic Bioethics center, and I may, but I'll ask here first as a shortcut) So I have two ethical quandaries that I'd like a Catholic Ethics (i.e. Natural Law) answer from. 1. If mRNA vaccines look like they're useful, an obvious better vector than a shot for stopping a disease would be to make mankind resistant chromosomally, does the mRNA vaccine represent a staging area for the efficacy of such a treatment and therefore represent a first step in a slippery slope that we should reject? 2. If mRNA vaccines are not transhumanist in nature, when it is injecting your body with a synthetic mechanism to prevent (not treat) a disease, how is it less transhumanist than replacing your cornea to avoid glaucoma or replacing your prostate to avoid cancer? 3. Why is it important to inform the public that it doesn't affect the genome? Does something have to affect the genome to be "transhuman"? Bionic eyes and nano-bots would not affect the genome either, but they would be transhumanist. How is turning ones body into a protein generating factory by synthetic means, not transhumanist?