Morals v. Science

Why is this such a difficult topic to have an opinion on? There's never a right or wrong viewpoint...is there?

Morals..Ethics. How can you determine what is completely moral when everyone's standards are different?

Which brings me to the topic at hand - mixing a mitochondria of an egg with a nuclei of another to make a new egg to join with a sperm. According to this article from The Sun, UK scientists are attempting to solidify this new discovery to help couples who have genetic disorders, so they will not pass on these disorders to their offspring. Thus, they extract the "batteries" of the egg by taking out the mitochondria and then join it with a nuclei of a healthy-genetic-disorder-free egg. I like the idea that couples who have these disorders have an opportunity to have children who aren't afflicted. But at the same time, I feel that it's not the scientists' place to interfere with this natural process of copulation, pregnancy, etc.

My friend says that a lot of unnatural things are beneficial to humankind - cancer treatment, immunizations, vaccinations, medicine, birth control, etc. This argument is too true, very valid, indeed. But in the question of morals, I don't like the idea of someone interfering with a future child. They say it's for the "better"? Yes, scientifically and biologically speaking it would be better I suppose for a child to not have genetic disorders. But the parents will always carry the knowledge that this child is not completely their own.

Just something to think about.