Reply to comment

It seems to me that there are two sets of somewhat distinguishable concerns on the table.  One is the broad set of issues having to do with the development of gene technology and genetic manipulation in general.  In this realm, my primary concern has to do with the tendency of contemporary humans to "normalize" and "optimize" in the short term, without paying adequate attention to the essential role the diversity plays in both genetic and cultural evolution.

The other, somewhat narrower set of issues has to do with the Human Genome Project in particular as a case study in science and public policy: how it was sold, what the resultants have been/are likely to be, how it impacts on the public perception of science.  I don't doubt the value of the HGP for basic biological research, but do think it, like the War on Cancer, was seriously and misleadingly oversold in terms of its short term promise for alleviating human suffering due to disease.  For more along these lines, see Genes, evolution, science education, and science.  My concern is not only that this will result in an increased skepticism about the value of "scientific" advice and "objectivity," but that it represents (another) missed opportunity to increase public science awareness of the complexity of biological systems and the inherent skepticism that science needs to represent for its own health.