Robert Mann said:

>> The above glosses over the fact that no one spends serious money or
>> serious time unless the product(s) that will result have potential markets
>> that will result in a return for investors.

> That is theory, which can't delete the facts I'd just summarised.

It is not "theory".  It is a cold hard fact, one that "protects" us from
the scenarios of "GM bees" about which fears have been expressed.

>> Please define the cash flows you might generate from a "perfect (GM) bee"...

> GeneQueen? resists varroa *and* the virus they carry....

My challenge was to focus on MONEY, not write a fictional press release.
Let me help:

a)  Roughly how many hives are on the planet?  Double the number, if you wish.
     Triple it, for all I care.

b)  Assuming that 100% of these hives are re-queened every two years with a
     "GM-improved" queen, how many queens is that per year?

c)  Given that existing conventional queens sell for between $8 to $15 US, what
     price can you charge for your fantasy "GM-improved" queens?

d)  What is your "cost of goods sold" when your product is queens?  How much
     of the retail price will be "gross profit"?  How much will be net profit?  What
     will be your net (after-tax) return on invested capital?

e)  How many years of sales will it take for you to "break even" on your initial
     investment, assuming that you had the massive unprecedented luck to make
     all the "GM-improvements" on the first try at the project, and avoid unforeseen
     defects/problems?

The exact numbers do not matter much when one compares the low price point for
conventional queens and small number of possible sales per year with the price
tag of any GM project.  Plug in any reasonable estimates you'd like - the numbers
just do not work!

>> all the stupid money
>> is gone, and with it, the brain-damaged companies, useless products,
>> senseless services, and moronic business plans.  Sanity rides again!

> I wish I could share this confidence that the gene-jockeys will
> soon cease to con the venture-drongos.  Can't see it myself.  I fear the
> gene-fad will get worse before it comes under any reasonable science-based
> control.

Like I said, the "venture-dongos" capable of being "conned" are back to their
original careers at fast-food customer counters, and the limited partners who
backed wild schemes suddenly have much more "limited" assets to invest.
Read the papers.  Check out the current much lower prices of office space on
Sand Hill Road, and note that one can now even get a table for lunch WITHOUT
a reservation at the Hotel Bel Air.

The "power of the purse" is a much more effective limit than "science-based control".
Science is too important to trust "control" to the scientists alone, and as luck would
have it, there are very few independently-wealthy billionaires who dabble in science as
a hobby.


        jim