The biggest barriers to scientific progress often come from environmentalists, which is ironic, because they often claim to carry the banner of good science. 

On Thursday, Mr. Obama's Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues released a report which cautiously approved research focused on creating so-called "synthetic life."  (The "synthetic" bacterium-- known as Mycoplasma laboratorium-- was actually just a normal bacterium, the natural DNA of which had been replaced by laboratory-made DNA.  While impressive, this hardly constitutes creating life from scratch.)

Predictably, environmentalists were outraged.  What exactly they were outraged about, however, still remains unclear.  Back in May, when this breakthrough was first announced, a member of a Canadian environmental organization called ETC Group, said: "We know that lab-created life-forms can escape and become biological weapons, and that their use threatens existing natural biodiversity."  Statements such as this essentially prove that many environmental groups are ignorant of basic biology and the current state of biotechnology.

First, if a scientist wanted to create a biological weapon, he most certainly does not need to make one from scratch in the laboratory.  Mother Nature herself has been conducting a very long evolutionary experiment, and she has produced plague, Ebola, anthrax, smallpox, malaria, swine flu, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and a whole host of other highly fatal infections.  Even though evil creatures could be dreamed up in the laboratory, Mother Nature will almost certainly invent something far more creative and destructive.

Second, environmentalists clearly misunderstand the current state of biotechnology.  It is standard practice in biological laboratories to insert or delete genes.  Your correspondent has himself created dozens of strains of genetically-modified bacteria using these common methods.  The technology to alter bacteria (and hence, the ability to modify existing microbes into super-killers in the laboratory) has existed for a couple of decades.  The "synthetic" bacterium does not represent any new terrorist threat and is simply the extension of an existing, commonplace technology.

Finally, the accusation that the technology will threaten natural biodiversity is incredibly premature and likely exaggerated.  It is true that any genetically-modified organisms should be tested for both human and ecological safety.  However, the environmentalists have already concluded that the technology is unsafe, even before the technology has been put to practical use.  They have already declared the defendant "guilty," but the trial has yet to start.

Until environmentalists can prove that they at least paid attention in high school biology class, it will be difficult to take their concerns seriously.

Maybe "scam" is a strong word, but "hyped" probably isn't.  More and more scientific research is showing that organic and green products don't live up to expectations-- or even to the label, for that matter.

This post by Melinda Moyer describes how so-called "green" household cleaners aren't any less toxic than regular household cleaners.  In fact, almost any product can claim to be "green" because there are no laws regulating that.  From the piece:

The core of the problem is that there are no laws regulating green marketing, so a company can say its product is all-natural or non-toxic without having to prove anything or even disclose its ingredients on the bottle.

What about organic farming?  Isn't that supposed to be "green," too?  Not really.  A recent article by John Stossel in Reason describes how free-range beef, which is marketed partially based on how good it is for the environment, actually emits more greenhouse gases than regular farming methods.  And another article from Discovery News reports on research from the University of Copenhagen which concluded that organic vegetables aren't any healthier than conventional vegetables.

So, what we've got is an industry selling you an idea:  The idea that "natural" is good, and "unnatural" is bad.  This misleads the public into rejecting modern technology and conventional agricultural practices, including techniques like genetic modification.

Does that make organic and green products a scam?  I don't know, but they sure are expensive.