sition. The dispute is essentially ideological, and quickly obscures valuable perspectives under much that is unfair and unproductive. Claims from both sides have a clarity and certainty more at home in the territory of faith than science, and are not to be trusted.

Ideological goal-scoring happens even in scientific debates, when disagreements over the interpretation of data can turn into questions of who is paying for the research. No one, it seems, is immune from bias, not even scientific journals. For example, an issue of Science magazine in July 1996 carried the news headline: "Pests overwhelm Bt cotton crop." This headline and the story's opening paragraph painted a portrait of biotechnology's failure, but a closer reading of the details gave a different picture.

Figures given later in the report reveal that no more than one percent of two million acres was actually affected—by just one of three pests the cotton crop was designed to withstand by killing. With conventional insecticides, a loss of about 5 to 10 percent of a crop to pests is routinely accepted. Yet in the atmosphere surrounding biotechnology, a loss of one percent is reported as a failure and a disappointment. So unreasonable are the expectations of the new technology, and so hysterical the reactions when they are not met, that this bit of news actually caused a one-day fall of 18.5 percent in the stock value of the company marketing the seeds.

Beneath the exaggerations and entrenched points of view, however, lies a broad area of common ground. Everyone wants a plentiful supply of nutritious food, economically produced, without harm to the environment. While it is true that companies will only invest in