The principal players in biotechnology might find it equally inconceivable that genetic engineering, with all its promise, could likewise be rejected. Nevertheless, that could easily happen. Society could also choose to accept some uses of genetic engineering and reject others, as we've done with nuclear technologies. The new gene-splicing technologies could also lead to a new generation of lifesaving pharmaceutical products. On the other hand, the use of gene therapy to make corrective changes in human sperm, eggs, and embryonic cells, affecting the options of future generations, is far more problematic, as is the effort to release large numbers of transgenic organisms into the earth's biosphere.
Human beings are toolmakers.
We are continually altering our environment to enhance our prospects for a better life. We are also risk takers. The fact is, the more powerful a technology is at altering the natural world, the more likely it is to undermine long-standing systems and disrupt the surrounding environment. The answer, I believe, is obvious. In the final analysis, we may decide to shift technological priorities altogether.