The world woke up to the potential of computers some years ago. There was a time when admitting to being in the IT industry was akin to picking your nose in public, but that's changed. The geeks really are inheriting the Earth.

Now the scientific community has cottoned on, too. A recent story in New Scientist (don't panic - I only use it as a cover while reading 'Viz' on the train) foretold of the evolution of the Web into a vast, intelligent mind, which could - and, in the tone of the article, probably would - take over the human race and control our destiny.

Stories like this are better suited to the tabloid press, but at least the implication of technological irresponsibility gives us an excuse to return fire, and ponder where scientists are leading us. The recent near-completion of the sequencing process for the human genome - aided, as a press release tells us, by a Compaq-supplied computing beast constructed from 600 Alpha processors, 64 gigabytes of shared memory and a roll of sticky-back plastic - has some astounding implications for the future of the human race.

To the man on the Clapham Omnibus, science is fine and dandy as long as it's (a) telling us about our recent past (archaeology), (b) telling us about our distant past (theoretical and particle physics) - although to creationists this is treading on dangerous ground - or (c) providing cures for cancer and other illnesses (biology and chemistry). Where things start to become more uncomfortable is in the realm of science as a shaper of our future. It's here that the rapid advances in the knowledge of our genetic make-up have really shaken large chunks of the population.

The genetic modification of crops is what has caught the imagination of tabloid and broadsheet alike, with many of the claims on both sides being exaggerated or just plain wrong. But the situation will be more complex once highlighting specific genes responsible for human attributes becomes commonplace. This won't happen for a few years, but when it does, the human race will be able to directly manipulate its characteristics, appearance and abilities. Want a blonde, blue-eyed baby with an IQ of 170 and no genetically-inherited illnesses? No problem, madam.

This draws unpleasant comparisons with the aims of Adolf Hitler, but is likely to be accepted by the public because very few people would choose to have a baby with genetic 'defects' if they had a choice. What is being conveniently ignored - yet all scientists know - is that diversification is, in virtually all organisms, the key to the survival of the species. Attempts to control or accelerate human evolution are likely to restrict diversity or eliminate it altogether.

Then there's the simple fact that diversity is what makes life interesting. Pick a name from history, and the chances are they had what would today be called a genetic illness. Einstein and Newton displayed symptoms of autism. Churchill spent much of his life clinically depressed, as did many other famous historical figures. A vast number of artists, comedians and leaders were (and in some cases, still are), slightly left of barking - consider Van Gogh, for example; you have to be a wee bit hatstand to slice off part of your own body. Other artists displayed symptoms of clinical obsession. I'm not sure what cutting a cow in half signifies, but unless you're a butcher it's probably not the actions of a 'normal' mind.

Are people so creative and inspiring in spite of their psychological differences or because of them? The latter is more likely. Creativity stems from seeing the world through a different perspective, from a brain structure that's different to the norm. What if Oliver Reed was such a Hell-raiser because of a faulty Alcodep195 gene? Fix the gene and you remove part of the personality. Any attempts to control human behaviour by means of genetic manipulation could reduce the person concerned to an automaton, devoid of freedom of will.

The bottom line is that scientists are adventurers of sorts. They want to find things that nobody else has found, and they're doing just that with increasing and impressive regularity. But most tend to leave the ethical questions to the rest of us as they move onto the next big challenge, and such questions are not easily answered. There's a (hopefully apocryphal) story about the engineers at the test site of the first hydrogen bomb, taking bets as to whether the resulting explosion would ignite the Earth's atmosphere. 'Responsibility' is not a word that springs to mind.

Add commerce to this fragile situation, by allowing companies to patent and profit from genetic manipulation techniques, for example, and that intelligent Web doesn't seem like such a scary idea after all.