There need to be boundaries determining how far we can cross into science's natural life. We can and should explore, discover, hypothesize and experiment, but tampering with the makeup of our scientific world of animals and humans is going to far. It doesn't matter what benefits we "think" there will be, it matters what is right. We cannot edit science like it is a computer program!
I disagree with the previous poster above me on many points such as bringing back extinct animals such as the Dodo and Mammoth I'd actually like to see those back. Extending human lifespans we've been doing this for years it's called medicine. Human genetic engineering suffering from a genetic disorder being able to abolish these disorders i think would be a good thing.
So why did I vote yes because there are things that I do think would be too far cloning not exactly cloning like dolly the sheep if there is a food shortage that kind of thing is fine but cloning a human being although it may very well be possible it is a terrible thing and would cheapen human life.For the record I am fine with cloning human organs like livers or hart and lungs etc.
Secondly bringing back extinct species of humans like Neanderthals they are humans and there fore would have the same or close to the same complex emotions to us so it's just as bad as cloning a human to me.
There are several scientific barriers humanity should never break through; bringing back extinct animals like in Jurassic Park, extending human lifespans, human genetic engineering, time travel, etc. I would include SeaWorld as well because orcas are wild animals and are not meant to be held in captivity and used as circus animals. There are some things whose implications are too great that it is too dangerous to fool around with.
Think about it. After we invent something, we still can invent something that can liquidate the dangerous invetion. And anyway every scientist exept those in hollywod is reasonable. And discovery is our thing. We cant stop discovering things because of conservative and religous thinking. Every idea can be improven and fixed.
In cases where scientific experimentation on a hundred will save generations of lives, one tends to overlook how valuable and important contrast that really is. But, people also tend to remember the negative a lot more than the positive in these cases. When everything works smoothly, then there is little reason for attention, but when an experiment of questionable moral is conducted, the whole world condemns it without a bit of prescience. We're basically damned if we do and damned if we don't. So why not try to take action - no matter how risky it could turn out - rather than remain inactive in stagnation? Sorry, but failure and success goes hand in hand, and there shouldn't have to be any "lines crossed" to begin with, only scales tipped back and forth by our basic need to explore.
If we as humans do not permit studies in order to advance our society, we are only prolonging our time in darkness. We must do all that we can to advance, or there is no point in existing. This is the scientific/atheist view point. Advance or die. Either one is could be our final destination. If we ban studies that seem crude and dark, what if a problem arises later on that we are not prepared for? What then? We will prolong the suffering of potential outbreaks that could have been prevented with a little more study. Or possibly never be able to cure the most common diseases. It is all in the future world's best interest, just no now.
We give high praise for medicine today but 300 years ago prisoners were dissected alive for it. There is no value to trying to stave off human ingenuity with things like "Ethics" even though it must be done in order to slow down the process; too much too fast and the human organism will end up with the cesspool that is The Internet all over again.