This is the point, Roger, at which you are inserting your feelings into a discussion of the facts. Science is all fact. The moral and ethical issues associated are not factual. They necessarily invoke the subjective element, as moral and ethical issues recruit our opinions, feelings and emotions in a way that facts never can.
The illustration of this is the article that you posted, which was about a Utah professor's moral horror at a technical application of genetic science. Technical applications have a direct effect on human doings, so ethics and morals belong in that discussion.
But it is important to distinguish between pure science, which is morally neutral, and applied science, which benefits from the attention of ethics boards. Applied science becomes our technology.
A good illustration is nuclear fission. That is science. The atom bomb is a technology. Nuclear fission is fact. Making bombs is technology. Deploying them is policy. However the popular treatment of the history of the bombs, and the publicized moral qualms of some of the scientists and engineers who worked on them, has done the disservice of implying that the science, not the technology or policy, is beholden to moral and ethical opinion.
This is your basic fail, and the stubbornness with which you cling to it is why you are receiving derision. There is no loyalty/popularity test. Your anger keeps you from separating fact from opinion, at which point you fail the real test: verity. It is for this and for the personal attacks you are making based on your feelings that you are receiving ridicule. On my end, it isn't personal.
