> The question could be restated as, "is technology susceptible to moral restraint and control?"

I have two answers to this question:

1) Of course. Developers of technology should not do immoral things, but what constitutes immoral acts in the name of research is debatable. Take medical research using animals; the moral good of helping people is weighed against the evils of harming animals. (I am not taking a position; I'm just stating that there are valid moral arguments both ways.)

2) Of course. Nuclear weapons, guns, and fire represent 3 stages in the technological development of weapons of war. Their use should have moral constraints. Who would say they shouldn't?

But I have a feeling that you meant something else by your question. Specifically, you probably want to know if the development of technology should be constrained by the potential moral consequences of the end product. (Please let enlighten me if you meant something else.)

Very rarely is a technology developed linearly. Technology evolves through a mix of deliberate exploration and accident. Development branches, twists, and recombines. The initial discovery of radioactivity lead to nuclear weapons, nuclear power, and a beneficial medical technology (x-rays, radioactive tracing, et al. The technology that allows us to cure a variety of genetic diseases is linked to the technology of cloning.

Technology is an evolutionary process of discovery and exploration. It is an essential part of what makes us human, because it is an expression of our intellect and creativity. No one can really predict the moral implications of technology while it's evolving. The seeds of our modern technology were planted decades or centuries ago. Other changes in culture, politics, etc. combine with technology to create the society in which we live today. The moral ramifications of a microwave oven cannot be solely laid upon that one piece of technology.

-- Patrick Riley