From the article: "Better medicines, carbon neutral fuels, cheaper food, and a cleaner environment—who could be against that? Well, quite a few people, as it tu

From the article: "Better medicines, carbon neutral fuels, cheaper food, and a cleaner environment—who could be against that? Well, quite a few people, as it turns out." That is begging the question. No one is opposed to these things. This is exactly equivalent to arguing against those who are opposed to nuclear power: "You are for pollution and opposed to clean energy." Sorry, but the possibility of great advances for humanity in any given field, does not, in and of itself, cancel out the real dangers involved, nor negate the arguments of those who urge caution. Do not get me wrong. I am a big proponent of nuclear energy, and also think that bioengineering has huge potential, but let's not use hyperbole to stifle legitimate debate, and label any opposition as hysterical hand-wringing. It's a rather unreasonable argument for Reason.