Sedative, i tend to lean toward your position. but more so because of the whole realm of genetics research and where it leads to.
if one studies the history of genetics, which largely emerged after World War II, it didn't come out of dust, it came from a previous movement, a pseudo-scientific movement called eugenics. if you look at the prominent genetics institutions today, most of them used to be eugenics organizations, and they simply changed their name.
in britain, the British Eugenics Society changed its name to the Galton Institute, named after one of the first progenitors of eugenics ideology, and is today, a prominent genetics research organization. in the US, the Eugenics Records Office, at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, which was compiling, in the first decades of the 20th century, the racial make up of Americans, and was the prime "research" facility for eugenics in the world. America even had eugenic policies such as sterilization imposed in roughly 20 states. today, the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory is the location of the primary genetics research organization in the US.
the main financiers of early American eugenics (the Rockefeller, Carnegie, Mellon Foundations) are today, along with the Ford Foundation, the primary financiers of genetics research.
Eugenical ideas about race-superiority are still present in genetics today, for example, James Watson, nobel prize winning scientist who was one of the pioneers behind mapping the human DNA genome, who worked at the Coal Spring Harbor Laboratory, said in 2007, that he was "gloomy" about the prospects for Africa's development, becasue "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really" and that with the idea of all humans being equal, "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true."
In regards to homosexuality, Watson stated, "that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual. He later insisted he was talking about a "hypothetical" choice which could never be applied. He has also suggested a link between skin colour and sex drive, positing the theory that black people have higher libidos, and argued in favour of genetic screening and engineering on the basis that "stupidity" could one day be cured."http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-pioneers-theory-africans-are-less-intelligent-than-westerners-394898.html
For an excellent and gorundbreaking overview of the history of eugenics and modern eugenics in the form of genetics ("newgenics"), see: "War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race" by Edwin Black, award winning researcher and author of "IBM and the Holocaust".
Here is a brief article he wrote on how American eugenics research and funding financed and helped create Nazi eugenics (specifically the Rockefeller Foundation): http://hnn.us/articles/1796.html
What scares me about genetics today is the things that it is used for. Everything can be promoted with a great cause, for example, curing the common cold, etc etc.. but the application of this science and technology must be differentiated from the stated purpose of genetic research.
for example, cross breeding of animals may help find cures to certain ailments, etc, however, it gets abused, such as when the US military mixed the genes of spiders and goats into a hybrid goat, which produces a powerful spider silk, that is used for body armour:http://www.carleton.ca/catalyst/2003/s2.html
This has also been done with cows:http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2002/01/49828
With regards to "curing diseases" through mapping their genomes, there are things other than cures that can result from this. BBC did a report on a brief history of biowarfare in regards to turning the Smallpox virus into a bioweapon:http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/coldwar/pox_weapon_01.shtml
Often through genetic manipulation, viruses can simply emerge unexpectedly, as occurred with Australian geneticists who accidentally created a lethal mouse virus:http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/sci_tech/highlights/010117_mousepox.shtml
Disease as a weapon:http://science.howstuffworks.com/bioweapon.htm/printablehttp://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v7/n1s/full/7400689.html
in case people think that governments should be trusted to act in the moral interest of people, a history lesson is in order. Here are western governments testing biological and chemical weapons out on their OWN populations:http://articles.latimes.com/2002/oct/10/nation/na-chemtest10http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jan/18/uk.military1
Ever heard of the Tuskegee Experiment? Well, the US government for 40 years was testing the effects of syphillis on hundreds of black men:http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762136.html
Bioweapons are even able to be "race-specific", or otherwise termed as "smart" in that they can target specific ethnicities based upon the genetic makeup:http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1998/11/16272http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_19990509/ai_n13937769
My purpose here is to try to place news such as "mapping the genome of a cold can produce cure" into a wider historical-political context. I just think when dealing with something so unbelievably powerful and dangerous as reconstructing and manipulating genes, the discussion should not be so limited and narrow as "save people through stem cell research" versus "sanctity of man", because then it becomes a religious debate.. the debate should not be religious, it should be rational and moral.