To the Editor:

The article ''What's Next for Biotech Crops?'' asks, ''How difficult could it be to determine whether monarchs were indeed at risk in the environment?''

Before attempting to answer this question, it is important to take a step back and ask another question: in a country that makes technology policy decisions based largely on risk assessment, what exactly do we mean by risk?

The notion implies both potential costs and potential benefits associated with a certain action. Risk assessment involves determining whether potential benefits will outweigh potential costs.

Should the risk involving Bt corn pit the financial benefits to biotech companies against the costs to monarch butterflies?

Or are we really trying to decide whether the moral and ethical costs associated with ''tampering'' with living organisms are minuscule when compared with the benefits of reducing the amount of pesticides used to grow our foods?

The answer, which is undoubtedly complex, depends on whom you ask.

Scientists simply cannot be left alone to make these decisions.

Perhaps an open discussion about how risks are constructed before they are subjected to scientific analysis will begin to ease the distrust of biotechnology.


Somerville, Mass.