Thanks for responding.

Here's what I'm trying to get at:

Im primis: I think that some pretty bad things might happen as a result of releasing GE organisms into the biosphere without much testing. Maybe not. I don't know. I think that we're being awfully cavalier about it. We're using the world as a laboratory to test this.

Obviously, some pretty good things will probably happen when we learn how to do it safely. I'm not opposed to research in this area. I support it.

If some of the concerns that have been raised about GE crops turn out to have been valid, then the consequences will be unpleasant, even tragic; but survivable. I think that advanced nanotechnology is potentially orders of magnitude more dangerous (and more promising) than what is currently being done with GE.

I don't like our "put it out in the field, and see what happens" approach to GE. I think it's reckless. And, I fear that we will take the same approach to MNT.

In any case, I've sort of given up. Reckless or not, I suspect that we're going to plow ahead without much safety testing, without much regard for the consequences, and just hope that everything turns out alright. I certainly hope that it does.

Ok, I see. Well, in the little experience I've had in the health sciences, it always seems that everyone ends up being critical of everyone elses statistics. I suspect the people who are really good at it aren't the ones who design, get funding for and conduct the experiments.

But as I read the article, the real problem was in the fact that the government set very relaxed requirements regarding the data that had to be submitted for approval. I believe that some of the studies pointing out some of the points that needed to be addressed came out after the data for approval was submitted (hindsight is 20-20). You have to keep in mind that this field is only ~10 years old, it isn't like the FDA that has been regulating drugs for 90+ years and have figured out how to get it right (at the cost of making drugs very expensive however). You also rarely hear about the trials that end up doing more harm than good — there are a lot of them.

Given the fact that scientists are starting to point out the flaws in the conflicts of interest, sloppy statistics and some of the problems with regulations that can't be effectively followed (where the corn ends up), things are being improved. It would be interesting to compare the success of the EPA & USDA compared with the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (RAC), which holds public hearings on research being conducted but does not have any power of "law" with regard to institutions that do not receive government funds.

I realize that gene transfer has to be considered. But, the part of the article that deals with regulation has to do with the sampling methods employed by EPA and USDA. From reading the article, one might conclude:

a) These guys do not know much about designing studies
or
b) They know a lot about designing studies, and deliberately build serious flaws into their methods in order to mislead the (not very math/science literate) public

Either way, this is pretty shoddy regulation. This is the point of my story.

It is worth noting that while the tone of the article is fairly "green", that in the end it was noted:

The fundamental problem here is the fact that these crops are still engineered to allow gene transfer. The technology exists to make these crops infertile, but when it was made known that companies were considering selling those types of products the third world development organizations screamed bloody murder. Either you want systems that replicate or you don't, people need to make up their minds.

Now, there is no "gene transfer" between biotech and nanotech or nanotech and nanotech (unless someone designs it in). And nobody rational is proposing that for any early stage development of nanotechnology. So the development of these types of regulations and certification processes doesn't really apply very well to nanotechnology. There is a big difference between natural environments where everything interacts with everything else and those where everything is engineered from scratch and it is by its nature non-interacting (diamond & sapphire don't interact with COHN to any significant degree). So we may end up with a world where the sand is littered with broken nanobots. So what? (Actually that is unlikely to happen, since carbon recycling is going to be an important requirement as we reach our resource limits.)

As far as the flag waving regarding the downstream proliferation of such crops there is no discussion that our ability to solve any problems we might create is increasing at a much faster rate than the organisms themselves are replicating or evolving. Sequence these organisms, determine protein structures and metabolic pathways and develop growth retarding or lethal molecules. This stuff will be High School Science Fair Projects — Francis Collins has predicted by 2030 that the cost of sequencing personal human genomes will be $1000 (the Moore's Law of genomics). Once you have candidate molecules, you do appropriate environmental testing before application. As our complete understanding of the web-of-life increases more and more "environmental consequence analysis" will be done on the computer and we will be able to predict the effects. Finally, when you get to the real Nanotech era, you design a nanobot that is not self-replicating, build a few billion of them and then disperse them with a single program "If this be Kudzu vine, disassemble it and return the carbon to the factory for useful purposes".

It sounds to me like a classic example of a scientist adopting the perspective that is likely to advance their area of scientific research (read "more funding").