>Even if the regulatory process is relatively strong, based on strong
>science, the corporate influence on science is quite thorough now.
>
>Finally, scientists and technologists often get carried away with
>their own technologies. There is a large literature about scientists
>introducing invasive species in order to accomplish certain ends,
>oblivious to the numerous other problems.
>
>We are talking about complex ecosystems, already stressed in
>unaccountable ways. The testing of this technology was haphazard at
>best.
But here's what he said:
>One thing I will say, we must not become anti-science. It will only
>put us backward. So, you must have the power to discriminate,
>analyse to find what is good for us. We must not say, bio-technology
>is good or bio-technology is bad. There is nothing like that.
>Anything may be good or bad, depending on how you use it. That is
>when ethical considerations come in. I always said, you need three
>kinds of mechanisms -- bio-surveillance, bio-ethics and bio-safety.
>If you put all these mechanisms, you can use these technologies
>safely.
What you're talking about isn't "bio-surveillance, bio-ethics and bio-safety." He's talking about an accountable and transparent regulatory system; you're talking about the present arrangement in the U.S.
Doug