Will biotechnology save us? Or hurt us? It’s an interesting question, no?

In a sense, we don’t have to look at the details to know it will undoubtedly do both. After all, can you name a single technology which does not have the capacity to hurt us, given the wrong circumstance or put in the wrong hands? And on the benefits side, any technology which doesn’t have the potential to help will never make it to reality.

Still, it’s a good thing that we ask this question at such an early date, for it usually doesn’t surface until we experience a surprise downside or become aware of a new and unfortunate use no one had previously considered. It’s at times like this that you find people stamping their feet, demanding to know why the travesty in question wasn’t handled earlier.

But we can only surmise so much. It’s one of the truths about tech: Those who build a technology can never predict how it will ultimately be used.

You might ask: If we are unable to successfully envision how a technology might be used, does it even make sense to talk about what potentially might happen?

My feeling is “You betcha.” And I’ll tell you why.

Every new design project has parameters within which the designers must work. Perhaps it’s how much money can be spent. Or what particular functions must be performed. How much energy it may use, or what kinds of waste are unacceptable. Biotech is no different. Whatever the parameters, unless they are on the table while the product is being designed, there’s no telling what their impact may be.

You can only optimize for visible traits; the invisible ones go their merry way.

This is also true for society’s moral parameters. We can choose to permit or not permit certain technologies to be used, or built, or even owned.

In Great Britain, private citizens do not own hand guns. No matter what you or I may think of this, their national discussion has led them to this decision. And yet, this same nation permits government-funded stem cell research, which we Americans do not.

For some Americans, both British decisions are heinous, while for others, both make complete sense. What’s clear is that social discussions – and societal decisions – can directly affect technology.

And social discussions surrounding cutting-edge science may be the trickiest of all.

For one thing, science serves us up new “truths” daily. An organism whose very existence is only hypothesized in one year, may be viewed directly and with great clarity the next. What’s thought to be a law of nature in one century is seen as only partially true in the next.

It is on this changing landscape, this emergent terrain that scientists operate. And it is here we try to answer such questions as “Will biotechnology save us? Or hurt us?”

Clearly, the answer is more than simply considering the upsides and the down, the projected promise and the peril. At a baser level, the true social question is: How can we act responsibly? Especially considering that science will no doubt show us, there is always more to learn.

I think the answer is quite simply this: Before we commit ourselves to a social agenda or a political stance, each of us needs to quietly ask: “Do I know what is knowable?”

Uninformed opinions are the most dangerous of all.

I'm Moira Gunn. This is Five Minutes.