To the editor:

In their commentary on page 360 of the April issue, Henry Miller and Gregory Conko declare that they wish to examine in more detail what they call the antiscientific basis on which the biosafety protocol was conceived. This they unfortunately fail to do. All we get is a list of epithets—deeply flawed, neologism, bogus. The precautionary principle is apparently the work of “antitechnology extremists” who wish to ban just about everything. This is, to use the authors' phrase, deeply flawed reasoning, if it can indeed be called reasoning.

The authors are skilled in the art of risk assessment. This is an art in which scientific knowledge is put into equations used to try to assess the risks associated with the use of various technologies, but it is not a predictive science. The arguments of risk analyzers cannot be said to be “more scientific” than the arguments of anyone else. Risk, stated most simply, is probability multiplied by consequences. In the field of biotechnology, it may be a useful measure of where we stand and give us a basis for discussion. As Miller and Conko note, risk assessment could be carried out according to the consensus of independent scientific experts. Do they mean independent from each other? A good start, perhaps, but what is needed is the judgment of scientists who stand completely free from the biotechnology industry. Can scientists who are closely involved with the industry be expected to perceive all the risks? Can they be perceived by the public as being unbiased? Tax-funded research institutes, standing totally free of the biotechnology industry, are urgently needed.