It's on Archive.org

https://archive.org/details/GeneticRouletteTheGambleOfOurLives

I started watching it, but there was too much fear-mongering even in the first couple of minutes for me...

The director is Jeffrey M. Smith:

In 1998, Smith ran unsuccessfully for Congress as a candidate for the Natural Law Party.[6] Smith is currently the executive director and sole employee of the Institute for Responsible Technology.[7]

The Natural Law Party -

The party proposed that political problems could be solved through alignment with the Unified Field of all the laws of nature through the use of the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi programs. Leading members of party were associated with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, leader of Transcendental Meditation movement.

The U.S. version of the Natural Law Party ran John Hagelin as its presidential candidate in 1992, 1996, and 2000. The party also ran congressional and local candidates. It attempted to merge with the Reform Party in 2000. Several state affiliates have kept their ballot positions and have allied with other small parties.

Counterpoints to the claims in the book are here - http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-content/genetic-roulette/ (via an Amazon review). I haven't read them yet.

In sort, too much woo and fear mongering for me. YMMV.

Cheers,
Scott.

Yes, lots of Woo--clue: there's nary a soupçon of Yays in it. But obfuscation of some selective data-taking, to further an esoteric agenda nullifies, is counterproductive to demanding further oversights--as very well might be needed.

Figured next task was to proceed as you did: (Who He? ..reason I asked if anyone saw this in '12.) Odd that PBS seems to have demonstrated no more diligence than any YouTube screed
--simply dropping it there, sans Intro or comments on the source.

Academic Review seems thorough, but I have to wade through their topic summaries, particularly re. random fragments created along with the intended insertions.. I don't think we're finished with constructing the unusual oversights which DNA-for-profit demands: it's a bizness now. And all that implies. Were there an area for fear to be mongered, I'd place that squarely on the concept that "you can trust a bizness decision; if it's profitable, it must be safe." Food-like substances, anyone? If you don't ƒeare those ... (and they're still in most schools, in the dis-US.) DNA-for-profit -vs- fast-food: which is the scarier?

'General Science' is not enough for a CIEIO to decide which? specific-unknowns in your product.. matter. See: fracking/aquifers and "don't worry; we know what we're doing".
It's 2014, and the improbable has become a familiar, on many equally fraught topics, while the recklessness of Corporate has become a daily given. To be less than paranoid about Blankenship clones would be dumb.

Will do my homework on next weird essay--thanks for the Archive.org tip; Maybe Google-pro would have been best; general Google is becoming a morass. (Do we yet know the effects of those Paid-sortings?)

Welcome to IWETHEY!