Here's an interesting link about the origin of the term Luddite: http://www.bigeastern.com/ludd/nl_whats.htm
The Luddites were English weavers who objected to the introduction of power-driven looms, which made products far cheaper than they could.
I think there is a basic flaw in this whole argument. The pro-technology group, as in the author of this article, assume that if those who opposed the introduction of past technology have been proven wrong, any possible future technology will also be beneficial in its long-term effects.
This is so obviously wrong that I'm not sure its necessary to point out the logical flaw. But here goes, anyway.
A power-driven loom (or a computer) is not remotely comparable in the scope of its effects to genetic engineering. This is without doubt the potentially most powerful technology ever to come along. As with any other source of power, it can be used wisely or unwisely. Some of those who oppose random implementation of this technology are not opposed to technology, they are opposed to its unwise use.
The Law of Unintended Consequences can be expected to apply to biotech in a really big way.
I'm not sure I want to be around to see the aftermath of a biotech "Ooops."