Thomas Friedman argues that advances in computer networking and connectivity have essentially "flattened" the world by making it easier for individuals anywhere in the world to compete in the knowledge society. He suggests that this moment in time for the U.S. is similar to the launch of Sputnik in 1957 as it will demand a serious restructuring of American education if it is to continue to be competitive.

After seven years of debate, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has denied a scientist a patent for a genetic chimera that is part human and part animal. The ruling was a victory for the scientist who was trying to create legal precedent against the creation of human-animal chimeras but it also raises serious questions about using the Patent office to govern emerging genetic technologies.

A new report from the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology surveys the growing research into genetically-modified insects and examines the possible health and environmental risks.

[ Link to Full Study ]

Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist at the University of Pennslyvania, argues that policymakers should establish rules now to govern the creation of new life forms.

The author surveys the efforts of governmental advisory boards to come up with a strategy for dealing with the implications of the genetic revolution and concludes by calling for more resources to be devoted to public education and involvement.

The authors suggest that to control the threat of bioterrorism, the Bush administration should strengthen domestic regulations to control and secure deadly pathogens and toxins and by launching the negotiation of a new ?biosecurity convention? to control these substances internationally.

A group of scholars and scientists met recently to discuss whether or not scientific research, specifically genetic and human cloning research, could be governed or controlled.

The author, chief executive of a biotechnology trade organization, argues against proposed regulations for the development and release of genetically engineered fish.

With concern about bioterrorism growing, government officials, ethicists and scientists are beginning to grapple with a thorny question — whether the nation's biologists and biotechnology companies should be regulated, or regulate themselves, to restrict access to information and materials that might be used for biological weapons.