Can manipulation of genes become as safe as usage of PCs?

As with many other new ideas, the idea of expanding the usage of biotechnology creates a lot of apprehension. Even Dyson recognizes the possible dangers in the use of biotechnology. Despite these dangers, he vouches for the ability of biotechnology to be used safely by the general public by comparing the expanded use of biotechnology to the expansion of the use of computers in homes. A computer can be a very dangerous tool used for creating things like hydrogen bombs and yet has not been used that way by the typical user, so at first it seems reasonable to think that something dangerous can become safe through widespread small scale use.

However, when considering computers, note that in general, the public does not have the ability to use computers to create much more than a word document, spreadsheet or a website. I don't think I know anybody who, if asked to go home and create a bomb using their computer at home, would know where to start. The way that personal computers are set up limits the ways that they are used by the public.

How would the use of biotechnology be limited for the general public. Dyson talks about teaching children how to play with genes, helping them to become comfortable with how genes can be manipulated. He suggests having rules and regulations to keep children from endangering themselves or others. However, if we think about the computer, there is no need for rules or regulations to keep a personal computer from being used for dangerous endeavors by a child. If the manipulation of genes is to become more widespread, safety will need to be rethought. There will always be people who are not going to want to follow the rules.

If biotechnology can somehow be limited to a level where all the general public will be able to create is about as dangerous as a word document, maybe then the analogy between biotechnology and computers can make sense.

~Sophi