The terms of engagement
There's a good essay in the October, 2002 Harpers (the print, no online version) about recombinant bovine growth hormone. The article by David Ehrenfeld does a good job of laying out the issues with rBGH, the discussion that the government and Monsanto would like us to have, and the other important factors that should also be included in the discussion, like ethics, the ecology of small dairy farms, health of dairy cattle, health of dairy farmers, health of all the rest of us, and many more issues.
When we define the discussion too narrowly we can often miss the true cost, the true consequence or the true benefit.
The essay ends thus:
...We also forget that science and the exercise of reason cannot by themselves provide the moral framework we need to judge our own inventions. If we restrict the context of our ethical inquiries to a narrow review of selected scientific facts, if we respect only technical information, we will never reach the sources of wisdom best suited to guide us on a just and sustainable path.
The best that you can say about science is that it is value-neutral (which I do not say because the people doing science are never value-neutral and that affects the questions being asked, the interpretation of results, the setting of parameters). And while science is a fascinating, exciting, and wondrous tool, it is still a tool. We get to decide what's progress and what isn't.
Ehrenfeld has a book out from Oxford University Press, Swimming Lessons: Keeping Afloat in the Age of Technology.