Being genetically predisposed to distrust anything Dawkins utters, and also to play "non-specific potentially-malevolent anti-deity concept's advocate", what if someone who would have succumbed to a childhood disease goes on to be the next Hitler or Pol Pot?
My rather clumsily made point is, once you start changing anything by fiddling with people's genetics, it becomes impossible to understand where you will end up, no matter how good or honorable your intentions at the outset. Even if this means getting rid of such a heinous disease as cancer. Which isn't a 'luddite' view, because of course we should be trying to do what we can in that sphere if not in others. But those who start along the genetic modification routes need to at least be aware that they are starting on a road towards an unknown destination. Which hopefully makes them apply the correct checks and balances, and approach their work with enough, well, enough of a moral compass (for want of a better phrase) so that they understand that 'I could do this' does not always equate to 'I should do this'... And that's where I disagree with Dawkins. He's made a call on some stuff we should do and bugger the consequences, and others we shouldn't. I reckon that either we apply the checks and balances to EVERY decision, or we may as well not apply them at all.
