Generally I am opposed to the idea of genetic engineering because it already has many many negative effects on people and the environment as it is.
Maybe that will change as the technology advances but I am sceptical.

Some of social negative effects that come to mind are:
• Only certain groups of people are able to afford certain treatments, thus creating classes of people who are financially and biologically superior
• Once technologies become more affordable some companies could start selectively recruiting people with certain traits for certain jobs. That would mean that parents have to pre-determine the fate of their children in many instances by choosing which traits they want to give their children that a company might be interested in.

Some environmental problems:
• Same principle as genetically modified plants: They are made immune against certain pesticides, pesticides get applied, many plants and animals die, pests become resistant, new and stronger pesticides have to be made yada yada.
I don't think it would be beyond reasoning that the same engineering could ultimately be applied to cheap labour forces, thus creating the same vicious circle.

Once very advance, the technology could have another negative effect. Genetic engineering could potentially remove many genes from the genepool, thus making our species more susceptible for changes of the environment.

Of course there are many potential positive effects as well, such as extending lifespans, solving world hunger etc etc. The effects that are visible right now are downright negative and they give the science a very bad reputation. That's because in the free market companies don't win because they necessarily solve a problem but the feeling that they do solve a problem.