Going too far?

There has always been a fine line between knowledge and innocence- or is there?
This week's discussion of the limitations and expansion of science reminded me of our frequent discussion of knowledge and innocence in past English classes- is knowledge power or is ignorance bliss?

the opposite lanes 

The obvious truth is you cannot have both- you cannot be educated yet be not be educated.  If that is the case, then where is the line drawn? The endless possibilities of science and technology stretch from finding the cure to cancer in "the spontaneously radiant radium" to replacing genes in "tobacco plants with... purloined genes". These include the "best and worst of our quest for knowledge".  The idea of choosing innocence over knowledge in the Measure of Restraint highlights the moral implications of going too far in science.  It may be okay to examine the leaves of tobacco plants, but the idea of "forever altering" the genetics of these plants has long lasting effects that extend beyond a single science experiment. If we keep on looking for the cure to cancer, will we eventually come to a spot where we must decide between risking lives to find the cure or staying on our path of ignorance? This decision might've already been put to test with the Curies' found radium.  When "properly used [it is] an effective treatment for cancer", but when it's used "craz[idly]", it "takes it's toll".

A eternal change.

So I am back to my original question that, from the humble origins in 6th grade english, still has not been answered.  Raymo brings up the true perils of going too far in the quest for knowledge, but the multitude of dying cancer patients show the true perils of not going too far.