Passage Summary: One guy says mapping human genes is definitely a good thing because it cures diseases, but the author thinks that's a weak argument because it ignores the possible downsides.

Conclusion: Robert Gillette’s argument that deciphering the human genetic code will definitely benefit humanity is not convincing.

Reasoning: Gillette fails to account for the possibility that the knowledge gained could cause more harm than good.

Analysis: In this 'Identify the Conclusion' question, the author's main point is a direct critique of someone else's position. The phrase 'Gillette's argument is not persuasive, however' is the clear indicator of the author's stance. Everything following the word 'because' serves as the premise explaining why the author finds the original argument lacking. It is important to distinguish between the author's conclusion and the conclusion of the person they are criticizing.