From Anne Gerrish
I have been doing a fair bit of reading around the rather vague subject of
“biotechnology” lately, so I thought it would be a refreshing change to read
your feature
(18 August, p 30)
on ecology.
This turned out to be less of a change of scene than I’d hoped. The article
states: “We don’t even know how many species are out there . . .[and] the
numbers are meaningless until we know how the different species interact.” This
is remarkably similar to the state of biotechnology—we have the first
draft of the human genome, but it’s pretty meaningless until we know how the
proteins interact.
There is a fundamental difference, though. Biotechnology, which might create
new drugs that might save some people, is very well funded. Ecology, which might
save the world, is not.
anne_penguin@hotmail.com
