Robert Mann said:

> These remarks reveal a lack of understanding of the modus operandi
> of the gene-jockeys.  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.  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.

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.

This is why GM seeds have been the first "GM products" one has seen.
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".  I have lived at the intersection of Science
and Money long enough to know the game from the government joint-venture
angle, the trans-national corporation internal R&D angle, and from the
NSF-funded "pure research" end.

Follow the money, and one finds simple correlations, and perhaps "the truth".

Until someone can show how to at least break even on a "GM bee", or
otherwise explain how investors or companies make money on a "GM bee",
it simply will not happen.

"Breaking even" will not happen until genetic manipulation technology
becomes orders of magnitude cheaper and more "reliable" than it is today.
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.

> Science-fiction fantasies abound in this crazy DNA-fad.  Lack of technical
> feasibility & commercial potential is  -  in this bizarre venture-capital bubble
> -  little or no barrier.

Do you mean the bubble that burst almost a year ago?  Do you mean all
those Vulture Capital funds that evaporated into puffs of greasy black smoke?

"Good riddance!", I say.  "Not a moment too soon!", I say.
In retrospect, most all will say the same.  Why?  'Cause all the stupid money
is gone, and with it, the brain-damaged companies, useless products,
senseless services, and moronic business plans.  Sanity rides again!

It is fitting that the people who bought stock in Sysco (a food-services
company) mistakenly thinking that they were buying stock in Cisco (an
internet router company who's name sounds exactly the same) actually
MADE MONEY on their "mistake".
In an insane situation, a "stupid" move can turn out to be "genius".

While I agree that "technical feasibility" is purely a function of money,
"commercial potential" is a harsh mistress.  "Good Ideas" are easy.
"Viable Commercial Products" are much more difficult.

This is not to say that understanding the honeybee genome will not
make breeding better bees (using traditional methods) easier, cheaper,
and faster.  It clearly will.  But the "genome knowledge" will result in
screening tools, not new engines of creation.

        jim (who still works the day shift at the idea factory)