>seemingly irrational fears of super viruses or ravenous mutants running rampant.

I'm not saying this is an absolute possibility. Far from it, actually. Our guys in the labs do know how to be careful, and extensive use of the scientific method, combined with meticulous methodical detail makes the odds of a 'sci-fi accident' significantly less than I might have insinuated. That said, it is nonetheless, still a possibility, and one that must be accounted for.

What I was actually alluding to, however, is that as informed and educated as the guys putting all this into play may be, there is still a *vast* amount of knowledge about the world and ecosystem we are part of that our species hasn't even touched yet. Even if a single genetic experiment on a small or large scale was completely successful, and even appeared promising initially, there can be no definite way of knowing if that promise will hold into the future of whatever species has been experimented on, as well as those above and below it in the food chain, or if it simply won't turn into a living disaster that could not have ever been accounted for with the knowledge held at the time (there is *always* scope for this, as anyone who has ever planned something huge in scale will agree). This was the emphasis of my point. How little we know, versus how much we could change potentially, with such a tool. Like a child looking at a picture of abstract art faces painted by a famous artist, and deciding that that doesn't look right and painting full faces over them because it looks potentially 'more correct'.

Not the best example, I know, but you get the idea.

>I definitely agree that humans are not ready for such technology
This still has the potential to divide our societies even more not to mention a mistake similar to the Industrial Revolution we advanced significantly technologically but look at what we've done to our environment.

Word.