Basically a warmed up version of the &quot;precautionary principle” - or as it should be named &quot;don’t do anything new because something bad might happen” principle. This is not an argument for any long tail, just an argument for inaction because we don’t know what might happen and can never know unless we try. If our ancestors had taken the same approach we would still be living in trees being eaten by wild animals.<p>What those propounding the precautionary principle forget is the do nothing approach is not cost free. 700 million people are made ill every year by mosquitoes and more than a million killed. Unless the risk adjusted consequences are greater than this then doing nothing is far worse. No one has been able to suggest any possible bad consequences of wiping out all human disease carrying mosquitos so there is nothing to be precautionary about [1].<p>As for the technology it is already in the wild - it was originally isolated from bacteria. One final point is yes it can be undone - see George Church’s paper [2]. George is on your side, but he does explain how any trial can be controlled.<p>1. <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nature.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;2010&#x2F;100721&#x2F;full&#x2F;466432a.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nature.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;2010&#x2F;100721&#x2F;full&#x2F;466432a.html</a><p>2. <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;biorxiv.org&#x2F;content&#x2F;biorxiv&#x2F;early&#x2F;2014&#x2F;07&#x2F;17&#x2F;007203.full.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;biorxiv.org&#x2F;content&#x2F;biorxiv&#x2F;early&#x2F;2014&#x2F;07&#x2F;17&#x2F;007203.f...</a>