Thanks to Instapundit, I found this article by Arnold Kling on regulating biotechnology (he uses steroid use in baseball as an example). His point is that regulation of biotech will lead to a world-wide dictatorship:

The Bioethics Council’s report has been widely praised, at the symposium and elsewhere, for raising the critical issues and moving the debate forward. I do not see it that way. By concentrating on ends and ignoring means, the Council has ducked what I see as the most fundamental ethical issue of all, which is whether concerns over biotechnology scenarios warrant a worldwide totalitarian dictatorship. If, as I would argue, such a dictatorship would be more dystopian than any of the scenarios that technology might create, then the report is really a cop-out.
Some of the toughest issues in bioethics involve means as well as ends. Will we curb freedom at the level of research, the level of development and marketing, at the level of consumption, or at all three?
Under decentralized decision-making, we are going to continue in the direction of conscious genetic selection, new techniques for physical and mental enhancement, artificial mood creation, and greater health and longevity. We have been doing these things for thousands of years by cruder means, and we are not going to stop now in the absence of a complete social redesign. Such a social redesign strikes me as more frightening than the dangers that it proposes to avoid.

As I’ve said before, it’s not long before a rich ballplayer can afford to have his own private biotech lab in his basement, making performance enhancing drugs tailor-made for him. They won’t be detected, because he’ll be the only user. People will suspect, but will that suspicion be enough to break down the player’s door and look for the lab? I hope not.