I don't see how it differs from first thermonuclear bomb test or the large hadron collider. They were peeking into the unknown. After making their best judgement, of course.
The years to come will be the years of climate change. The best we can do is lower its severity a bit. Ecosystems will be straining to adapt. We can no longer hope that not doing anything to ecosystems will keep status quo. Proactive measures will be necessary. And we will be still in the dark about consequences of those measures, if we don't start doing experiments now.
Majority of people don't have sufficient knowledge to assess risks and benefits of genetically-modified-organisms-in-the-wild scenario, so it should be "Demand to tighten regulations", not "Oppose such practices".
That was considered by some scientists who would pay a price if they were wrong, concluding it wasn't a serious risk. The calculation here is being decided by a company who'll pay nothing if they're wrong yet will profit if they're not.
But say for a minute this statement isn't true: that they proceeded with hugely risky experiments without a careful analysis. Would that mean being so reckless again now is justified?
You would use blind luck last time to justify another round of Russian roulette?
I remember reading a Feynman story where he was given the job of checking the calculations about that, and asking what if he made a mistake, was told not to worry, as no-one would ever find out. I googled for that but first found this article, which has a range of quotes about those fears from physicists, and some of the chemistry/physics of the actual fusion reactions people thought might happen. I hadn't read about that before - like the nitrogen in the atmosphere turning to magnesium! etc..
In this case it's "specifically designed to not reproduce". Hybrid vigor isn't extinction level threat. And evolution of population to be averse to sterile males is hardly unexpected.
The years to come will be the years of climate change. The best we can do is lower its severity a bit. Ecosystems will be straining to adapt. We can no longer hope that not doing anything to ecosystems will keep status quo. Proactive measures will be necessary. And we will be still in the dark about consequences of those measures, if we don't start doing experiments now.
Majority of people don't have sufficient knowledge to assess risks and benefits of genetically-modified-organisms-in-the-wild scenario, so it should be "Demand to tighten regulations", not "Oppose such practices".