i'm not sure i understand the leap made from "there is some genetic component to human behavior" to "this will lead to eugenics, or worse---genocide." i think it would only if the society into which it's introduced is ill enough to consider these as possible "solutions." i'd have to read more about sociobiology, but it just seems reasonable to me that some of our behavior has to do with genetics. as wilson pointed out, we're animals, we're primates---we live in social groups because we are primates.
i tend to doubt that there's a specific genetic component for "hopelessly violent behavior." possibly someone could be born with a tendency to process emotions in a certain way, and the environment (ex.: abuse, neglect, etc.) can interact with this to produce someone more prone to aggression. in a positive environment, that same trait might produce a great sensitivity or even an urge to protect. i'm not sure how the concept of choice would play into a scientifically based discussion of human nature, or how it might be couched in scientific terms, but that would play a role too.
since wilson noted that altruism ran counter to the idea that "survival of the fittest" determines natural selection, and since it's likely that we're altruistic in part because we're genetically designed to be that way (we're primates, we're designed to live in social groups and thus protect one another,) then the idea of eugenics and genocide run completely counter to sociobiology (and vice verse.) again---i think only the most ill society could use this idea as a justification for such actions.