It's a common trope for fiction writers to hate science and technology. The idea that knowledge is a recipe for destruction is deeply rooted in the past, dating back to at least Prometheus' punishment for stealing fire from Mount Olympus. But the more blunt examples are those in the mad scientist category; the Frankensteins, the Jekkyl and Hydes, the Dr. Moreaus, the Lex Luthors, etc. By taking their pursuits of science to unethical extremes, these characters not only wreak havoc, but shame the entire concept of science. Never mind that technology is what has allowed human beings to survive this long, can dramatically improve the length and quality of life, and ( for the " first world ", at least ) has done so repeatedly; all it takes is one guy inventing one monster, and the whole fictional world slides into a Luddite bias.
Oryx and Crake is no different, with its dystopian setting founded on consumer technology run amok. Biotechnology has led to monstrous creations that probably would have led to antibiotic-impervious diseases, information technology and new media have resulted in instant and accepted access to the barbaric, and the resources of the world are dwindling rapidly. There is no suggestion that humanity is trying to improve itself, but merely sleepwalking towards oblivion. Meanwhile, the amoral genius Crake determines that the only way to save society is to replace it with a group of docile, intelligently designed primates with no concept of art or progress. Everyone else is apparently a lost cause.
Even if we don't get the Star Trek type view of technology as a faultless elixir for all of humanity's ills, it would be nice to see a more balanced viewpoint. Atwood is incredibly effective at pointing out the ways technology can be used for destructive purposes, but not so much at showing constructive uses for science. There is no entertainment of the idea that Crake's science could have saved humanity, merely that the damage that his predecessors did to themselves was irreparable. Apocalypse is a forgone conclusion.
The downfall of society in Oryx and Crake is ultimately not the fault of the technologies, but the people and cultures that abused them-- people like Crake, who hides his sociopathy behind his claims of empirical evidence. When a religion is criticized for the acts of a few fundamentalists, others are quick to point out that the majority of believers are decent, law-abiding citizens. Perhaps a large section of fiction writers need to apply the same logic to science and scientists?
I would argue that most science fiction writers do. Or if not most, many. Oryx and Crake seems to me to be the most vehemently anti-technology of any of the novels we've read this semester. There really aren't any positive descriptions of technology, even less sinister technologies like videotape are mentioned only in the context of child pornography and filmed executions. This novel is an extreme example of a negative portrayal of technology, but its definitely just that, an extreme. Gibson showed electronic communication to be an antidote for disabling physical transportation in Pattern Recognition and if nothing else showed us how cool transhumanism could look with Molly in Neuromancer. Cherryh presented technology as a mixed blessing and a curse, Delany had a lot of good things to say about technology, just to name a few.
This novel may apply a fundamentalist distrust of technology, but the majority of science fiction does not take such an extreme stance, to assume so is to fall in to the same trap of overgeneralizing based on extremes.