kimbers, and for that reason I fully support the decision today.
Molgrips, not familiar with SMA, but my mate has CMT another dreadful disease caused by a clearly identifiable mutation. For these you would have to be very cruel to block treatment and certainly I think the sooner we can screen for and eradicate erroneous expressions of recessive genes the better. However the interaction of genes are very very subtle and have evolved over millions of years, so messing about too much and allowing the modified genes to intermingle with the gene pool is a risk. I don’t see this as much risk for humans as we breed slowly. Likewise for food crops and lab controlled organisms I am fairly relaxed if interbreeding is not a risk. But a GM bacteria in the wild could be unpredictable in the extreme.
Saying you are anti or pro GM is a misnomer. It’s like saying you are pro or anti chemistry. It’s a science. We need to and will understand it, it’s what we do. However as I am sure Mr Haber would have testified, it’s not the science that’s the risk, it’s the application.
Do the research, but control the corporations driven by profit in how it is then used.