H5N1 Virus, Atomic Weapons, Genetic Modification

I wrote
>> Our "authority" comes from the fact that it's
>>possible within the laws governing this physical
>>world.

Dan Wylie-Sears replied
> That sounds too much like a might-makes-right
>principle for my tastes.

I was thinking more like the "opposable thumbs-makes-right" (or
capacity for analytical thinking) principle, but it's another way of
saying the same thing, I guess.

> The fact that it's possible tells us nothing about
>whether it's morally acceptable. (It is, btw.)

So, many of us think that a lot of the presently controversial things
are OK, but how to clearly delineate our thnking which leads us to it?

Should the last remaining cultures of smallpox be exterminated, or
should they be kept for biodiversity and science?

Suggested (off the top of my head for now) talking points:

** Things which may be used for good or evil aren't necessarily
either one. It's the intent of the aplication which matters. Whether
it's atomic power, gene engineering, or altering an asteroid
fragment's trajectory to bring it to HEEO; what is the intent, and is
it reasonably certain that its safe from irresponsible diversion to
evil?

** The simple fact that it's possible to divert something to evil
intentions isn't sufficient cause to utterly ban the thing (besides
the -seeming?- impossibility of banning anything).

** Is attempting assurances of safety and only-good-use possible? Is
banning and eliminating anything (with strong tendencies to be used
for evil and very little plausible good uses) possible?