Jim has given one view of how money, science & technology inter-relate.
I suggest alternative pictures.


>>Billions of dollars have been poured into
>> gene-splicing capers that have yet to produce any 'GM products'.

>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.


>  Please define the cash flows
>you might generate from a "perfect (GM) bee", even if you assume that
>every beekeeper on the planet will buy your queens, and no other.

        Shr, no sweat.  When you've read as many of their fantasies as I
have, you can develop the knack for dreaming up similar yarns.
                GeneQueen® resists varroa *and* the virus they carry.
Boosted by Dominator� technology so the genes for resistance to these pests
will be dominant, GeneQueen® do not require artificial insemination but can
spread the desirable alleles even in open mating.  However, the same
suppliers (a small group of bee researchers who recently quit Cornell,
Woods Hole and other academic institutions to start up BeeKey®, applying
edge-of-reality technology & PR to prevent bee diseases.
                Next BeeKey® will launch a Third-World model DroneClone® to
help the poor.


>The above also confuses money spent on "pure R&D" (answering the question
>"CAN we do it at all?") with money spent on specific applications (which
>answers the question "What shall we do with it?").   Pure research can be
>done on grants.  Applied research, for the most part, cannot.

        I am trying to convey the fact that this distinction has broken
down.  Observing the ease with which glib gene-jockeys procure millions
from the venture-drongos lately, one is forced to this conclusion.


>This is why GM seeds have been the first "GM products" one has seen.

        It may not matter much, but let's pause to correct this.  The GM
product biosynthesized in GM-bacteria, L-tryptophan
http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/trypto.html , went on the market in 1984,
whereas the first GM seed was the FlavrSavr® tomato, the 1996 flop.


>Seeds are a big business.  Massive.
>
>> That James can't see any commercial sense in trying GM-bees is no
>> test of whether the gene-jockeys will try them.
>
>It is a VERY good test. In fact, it is the only test one needs. "Science" is
>kept on a short leash by "Money".

        This is an important contention, widespread but open to doubt in
some cases.
Once you've reached some thresholds at large spondulicks and arcanity of
technology, you may be able to work it the other way around.
        For instance, in my country a couple billion dollar was procured by
Mobil thru local 'ace technologist' expert C J Maiden (since knighted) to
scale up 1400x chemical engineering of a novel kind to polymerise methanol
(made from natural gas in the world's biggest methanol factory) to make
(1983-96) low-octane E-Z Knok� petrol, plus LPG, plus bulk useless heat.
This was an example of the technology leading the investors.  The Manhattan
District was arguably *the* example.  I disbelieve that accountants &
lawyers on the Monsanto board accosted their staff biochemists with the
order "create patentable potato genes to make a truncated Bt insecticidal
protein throughout the plant".  I think it's usually the technical folk who
are the prime movers in these capers.
        Bizarre, I realise; distasteful to many, upon first glimpsing this
crazy scene.  Read The Ecologist for more details.



>To address Allen Dick's comments, gene-manipulation technology will NOT
>follow Moore's Law, and enjoy the rapid cost decreases associated with
>calculators and computers, since there is much more than just silicon chips
>in such hardware.  In fact, even the best hardware available today will not
>assure "success" more than a tiny percentage of the time one attempts
>even the simplest "tweak" to genetic structures.  In short, the entire area
>of inquiry is still a dice roll.  You place your bet, and take your chances.


>"technical feasibility" is purely a function of money

        this is one of the wrongest statements I've seen


> 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.

R