Yes, I believe biotechnology and the life sciences industry are vital to the future of humanity. Biotechnology cannot by itself solve hunger or extend life or improve quality of life. But biotechnology can help humans progress in their efforts to improve human and environmental conditions. Is the technology benign? No. All human developments pose risk. They always have. But on balance, arguments favor continued support for biotechnology and continued research into its safe uses.

Farmers overwhelmingly support the concept of genetically modified crops. Survey after survey confirms that. It is reasonable to conclude that the viewpoint is not capricious. Something exists to buttress support. Consider, too, that farmer support exists through these times of criminally low prices even though GMOs do not dramatically cut costs. Nor have GMOs substantially improved yields. Yet farmers continue their support, despite the furor over the Starlink fiasco. Aventis' bad judgment in releasing Starlink without all approvals is unforgivable. But it was a bureaucratic snafu, not a scientific one. Its effect on human health or the environment was nonexistent.

Still, my support (and I believe agricultural support) of biotechnology is not unconditional. Misuse of science poses dangers that must be recognized. But, I am comfortable with the risk-assessment process developed by U.S. scientists and the governmental agencies structured for that regulatory purpose. And no, I do not believe multinational corporations control the U.S. government nor the approval process for biotech products.

Most criticism of the science and of the corporations involved tends to be a rehash of tired, old arguments that our lives, nation and world are controlled by those with unassailable power, tyrannical natures and evil intentions. It's easy to spot those arguments. They always include the word "corporate."

The deep, heartfelt responses many people have to biotechnology tend to distort the subject. You don't have to listen to debate long to understand many of the arguments are simply visceral reactions masquerading as facts.

And no, I do not believe that all opinion is equal and must be equally deliberated. You must question the credentials of those advancing research and weigh the results carefully. I have come to believe the conclusions of mainstream scientists should be accepted over the data propounded by individuals carefully selected by environmental organizations.

Certainly, groundbreaking science can come from outside the main. But the mainstream is invariably proficient in accepting and evaluating results.

And no, I do not consider myself anti-environment. On the contrary, I consider myself an environmentalist. But I am intellectually disgusted by the tactics of today's groups who like to describe themselves as environmental. I tend to align myself with the former head of Greenpeace. He's on record saying that today's members of green groups are fixated on antagonism, confrontation, misinformation and division at the expense of practical progress on all fronts. Their arrogant, contrary actions, if continued, will ultimately destroy valuable gains of these past few decades.

Yes, I do think the founders of most environmental groups would be disgusted by the positions of today's groups. The founders would recognize the tremendous improvements in today's cleaner air and water and farming practices. And they would work with those willing to continue improvement.

And finally, yes, I consider you a friend whose intellect I value and whose approval is dear. I haven't bowed to corporate pressures; I have followed where my conscience and reasoning lead.