> The difference is a few humans, and that's too big a risk, in my opinion, to take lightly. You're assuming it's riskier, in terms of lives, to try this techn

> The difference is a few humans, and that's too big a risk, in my opinion, to take lightly. You're assuming it's riskier, in terms of lives, to try this technology. But it could be -- and obviously it's up in the air, which is my point -- that without such technology many more people will end up dying. The status quo is never neutral with respect to risks. What if it was used to provide immunity to malaria, as a hypothetical example?