> What ever could go wrong playing with nature? :-)
No offense (seriously), but this argument is the biggest load of bullshit.
Do you think there are any major food sources that just developed, as is, naturally? Pretty much every vegetable, fruit, grain, or pulse - has been selectively developed by humans, many over the course of thousands of years. The bananas we eat can't even reproduce without our direct intervention. Animals, too, both livestock and pets - that dachshund wasn't running wild in the forest before we tamed it.
We've been playing with nature as long as we've been able to do so. Genetic engineering is just a better set of tools for it. Somehow, though, people have convinced themselves that the selective breeding process is safer than direct genetic manipulation. Because, of course, breeding crops based on taste or visual appeal makes for safer and better development of crops - why pick the specific traits you want when you can just fumble about for generations without a clear idea of what you're gonna get?
Should we be careful? Sure, in this as in all things we do; but the fact that the technology is new isn't the reason why.
The fact that your favorite ~~zombie~~ robot movie used "experiment-gone-wrong" as a plot device doesn't inform you in the slightest as to the likelihood of this occurring in any real life scenario. Why are (some) modern science fiction producers and consumers so damn quick to get preachy about risk profiles they know nothing about?
It just so happens that Asimov (the guy who wrote the series of short stories which inspired the title and character names of I, Robot) had something memorable to say about this kind of silliness:
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way
through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion
that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'
- Asimov
