Should we view scientific advancements....

When the s3lf-glorifying medical overlords start to push a healthy diet, exercise, and healthy living, aiming at building natural immunity, rather than their money-making dodgy vaccines etc, THEN I will start to listen to them.

Not before.

The scientific medical field has a history of rejecting nature. Medical colleges in the past would jeer at herbal remedies, or doctors of homeopathic medicine, who address environment, mind, body and spirit when they attempt to restore health. Insurance companies won't cover homeopathic medicine.

The Hippocratic oath is something that big pharma and the AMA now trample into the mud in their rush to grab more and more money. Children are now being MUTILATED by doctors who have no idea what long term thinking, and/or morality might be.

Nature itself will take its toll. It will punish those who break its boundaries.

Fire is good. Useful.

Setting people on fire is bad.

Like fire, we can put genetic engineering to good use while taking care not to weaponize it or use it carelessly and cause harm.

Ethical considerations come first, IMO.
Just also being careful of not making prejudices a virtue.
Changing some natural stuff had been a human activity needed for survival of our species since at least the neolithic (selective agriculture) and probably earlier (domestication).
So is needed to be careful without getting mystic about and neither making the "common sense" of a period and culture a moral must.

We should be extremely cautious as our cure is likely much worse than the disease.

Not just the moral implications but also something that had long-term consequences for harm.

Less the morally, but more a larger context for discovery.s ie can it come back to do great harm in the long run. Cost-benefit analysis beyond the immediate.

If you cure someone’s cancer by using genetic engineering, some idealist will certainly find fault with it. I find that sad indeed.

Nah I'm good Naturally