Questions:
Is it possible to morally judge a technology without knowing its consequences?
Is the "essence" of human life in the genes?
Where could a line be drawn between "good" and "bad" uses of genetics?

Genethics Links Page

Biological weapons have been in use for quite some time. They are infamous for being invisible and terrible means of destruction of life. With the advent of modern genetics even more sophisticated bioweapons are imaginable; even more dangerous, new possibilities for bioterrorism and biowar arise. However the recent paranoia is already supposed to be more of a hype than adequate to the real threat (Bioterrorism Panic Rises, But Is It Truly Justified?). What is the state supposed to do about that?

Factsheet on Biological Weapons (by Georg Schöfbänker)
. part 1
. part 2

. new articles on Biowar
. Threat of "Bioterrorism" becomes strategic issues in NATO's nuclear planning

Questions:
Is the fear of bioterrorism exaggerated given the statistical data?
Is public paranoica being used as a legitimation of further research?
Should there be regulations to restrict exportation of genetic technology to certain countries?

Law concerning life science (particularly genetics) in general tries to protect the interest of two different parties. On the one hand it is supposed to enable progress of science and technology. On the other hand it shall protect the individuals freedom and health from being threatend by new technologies.The possibility of having the DNA of a certain creature sequenced does also raise questions of patent law.
see Gentechnik: Patentrecht (german).

EU-Law (in german)
Treaties and International Agreements

Questions:
Should the state interfere with science at all?
Is national law adequate to a technology of global impact?