One. Describe new technology in some inflammatory way, strongly suggesting that it represents an extreme violation of nature or existing moral frameworks or social convention.
Two. Wait a few seconds: this will entice out of the woodwork ‘small c’ conservative moral thinkers, including those who make reference to religious ideas, and those who reference the violation of the natural order.
Three. Debunk and ridicule the most extreme interpretations of these critiques, pointing out that the original inflammatory description of the new biotechnology is ‘just plain ridiculous’.
Four. This will obscure any more trenchant or measured critique of the proposed new biotechnology, throwing up loads of argumentative dust, inciting rage, and rendering detailed, accurate and honest debate otiose.
Five. That’s it. You can always add vivid stories about the individuals who need the new technology, as this helps to make the critics seem utterly heartless, (even if they are not necessarily completely opposed to it in all its forms anyway). But you don’t need to, because as soon as there is any opposition to the technology from ‘the church’ or similar, or any suggestion that it violates nature, you have won, regardless.