There probably are some modifications that I would be willing to agree on being harmless. I just feel that that classification should only be made by cynical and pessimistic biologists, who look at everything from a worst case scenario perspective. It should never be decided by economic interest.
You definitely don't want the cynical pessimist biologists, then. They tend to be significantly easier to buy off, heh. Probably would rather have some variation of idealist, instead. Much less likely to have given up on ethical action or be easily swayed by moolah.
... though point of order on the evolution thing, it's not a matter of years, it's a matter of
generations. And for species with shorter life cycles (like, say, bacteria, many plants, lots of insects, etc., etc., etc.) you can see pretty drastic changes in a human lifespan.* Gene dispersal in the geographic sense, on the other hand, is entirely variable based on the species in question. Plant and plant related stuff, though, are often
really good at spreading around, so it can be very easy for a natural local mutation to become very
not local in very short order. There's a reason we have close to unkillable kudzu terrorizing chunks of the US south-east, heh.
*This is pretty much the explicit reason a lot of our evolution research has been done with flies and whatnot, as you're probably aware.
