If you want to know more about the methodology for the Wilson Center’s surveys, the papers are posted (I think I provided a link, didn’t I?) They’re quite transparent about it.

As for Y2K — of course I remember it. I’ve been writing about technology since the early ’80s; it wasn’t a story that could be overlooked, no matter whether you thought it was much ado about nothing or a cataclysm in waiting.

My favorite quote at the time, which came from someone Italian politician responding to Y2K concerns about all the pilgrims that would be flocking to Rome, said, ‘The problem is so huge there’s no point in getting hysterical about it.’ I think I used it for my New Year’s party invite; it still makes me laugh.

I’m not sure whether you’re a biologist or a computer person, but one of the things people tend to forget about when they say ‘Y2K didn’t happen’ was that squadrons of programmers spent lots and lots of time working on mitigating the problem in advance.

As for ‘nothing will happen’ with synthetic biology: (a) you can’t know that, and the statement does not take into account much of the history of science, where a failure to look more broadly at consequences led to some very unpleasant outcomes; and (b) unlike Y2K, the SB community is not taking large-scale, long-term risks and unintended consequences seriously — or if they are, they are keeping it to themselves.

Also you have made a logical leap here about my position that is inaccurate, and that I want to be sure and correct.

I could not possibly agree with you more about the need for more research — more and more! — and whenever I speak publicly about synbio I make that very clear. Advocating for careful consideration of all potential outcomes and acknowledging the need for (much) more funding for research (especially public funding) are not mutually exclusive, at least not for me.

But I think it is dangerous to have so much basic research tied so quickly to commercial development, particularly in a brand new field that is built on what I think is still a very questionable scientific premise: that biobricks are like circuitry that operate independently, with the same kind of predictability. As I’ve said elsewhere, the ENCODE study is just the latest evidence of the need to re-examine anything built on that premise.

One of the many problems with the heavy commercial slant to SB research is that the results are generally considered to be proprietary business information. The larger scientific community needs to see this data, and replicate it. Just as importantly, it needs to know more about the experiments that failed. Failure is often even more illuminating than success.

As for my concerns about risk: I’ve done extensive research into risk assessment methods for technology innovations like genetic modification. I spent four years writing a book on the subject. And I am convinced that being thoughtful about risk in the ways that I’ve written about actually makes for better science and opens new horizons for discovery that narrower perspectives overlook.

I’d be happy to direct you to some of those studies if you’d like to learn more. Thanks.

A “whopping” percentage of Americans haven’t ever heard of Web 2.0, yet millions of dollars are pouring into that technology, too, and we’re already using it right now. A “whopping” percentage of Americans haven’t heard of many things which effect them every day; that is why we are a Republic instead of a Democracy — because the opinion of experts is better than the opinion of the uneducated average American. Your use of the term “whopping” at all, is whoppingly surprising.

If 9% of Americans have heard of synthetic biology is amazing, considering the field is formerly less than 5 years old — the first conference on the subject was only held in 2004. It makes me wonder which Americans were asked in the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies survey, and how many of them were asked. Less than 9% of Americans might know how much saturated fat is in a McDonald’s french fry, although they eat them by the dozens, nearly every day.

If you would like to write position articles, that’s great. Please avoid sensationalism. Remain objective. Avoid surplus use of unwarranted adjectives to bias the opinion of your readers.

When I run across opinion pieces on science, I’m always reminded of Y2k. You remember Y2K? Maybe not.. because nothing happened. After all the articles portending doom, when Y2K arrived on Jan 1st, 2000, nothing happened. The same will happen with synthetic biology in terms of the “doom and gloom” — nothing will happen.

You might want to write a paper, instead, on the potential for the decreasing technological lead of the U.S. with regards to the sciences, seeing that the Ministry of Finance of Hong Kong spoke at the Synthetic Biology conference, pledging significant government support and funding for Hong Kong’s synthetic biology programs, and seeing that Asia doesn’t seem as concerned with genetic modification of organisms (such lack of concern is likely due to lack of religious spillover — aka, Biblical metaphors — into state governance). Remember, a “whopping” percentage of Americans can’t even pass a basic algebra test. And yet, a “whopping” percentage of technologists in Asia have the potential to kick the technological muster out of America. If anything, the U.S. had better focus more effort on the sciences, including synthetic biology, in order to maintain the lead on technology — if we intend to continue enjoying our high quality of life. America’s baby boomers are aging. Who is more likely to solve our own nation’s health problems.. yes, it’s the American researchers in the life sciences. That’s the real issue which should be on the table: how to enable scientists in the U.S. to do synthetic biology better, and how to make the science involved more openly published online.