Robert Cohen and Jeanne Marion? Amanda Sheedy and Kai Malloy. If you could identify yourself when you speak, and we will time you. Three minutes we will ask you to summarize.

Either one can go first. Go ahead.

MS. SHEEDY: I'm a student in biology. And I just recently took a course in general ethics and --

MR. ALLBEE: Would you just identify your name?

MS. SHEEDY: Amanda Sheedy. And one of the things that really strikes me about the bio-technology industry is that our knowledge of DNA is really quite new. It's a brand new science. Only discovered 10, 15 years ago.

And every day we discover new ways that DNA is expressed. (inaudible) Proteins that is what makes us who we are. This is what makes plants what they are. DNA gets read, transmitted into a protein which then gets -- has different functions within a cell, takes -- I don't know, I don't want to give you a whole science course here, but basically we are learning every day how to get traits. It's not just necessarily expressed by one gene on the segment here, but rather as a whole assembly of products from different parts of my DNA.

So in a sense what I'm trying to say basically is that by taking a piece of DNA out of fish and putting it into a tomato we are really playing -- it's a bit of a random game. They can definitely test. It makes the tomato redder, has longer shelf life, et cetera, but what they haven't been telling us or what they haven't been experimenting with is what other effects that gene has on the species. Because it's not necessarily -- its only role is not necessarily in the trait that we are trying to alter or events or whatever.

For example, you know, a redder tomato but this very same gene might also have impact on the way that the root system is working, for example, or the way that the plant interacts, is affected by frost. You know, their understanding of genetics is limited. And I feel like by playing with this thing that is so, so new, and -- they are already implementing it, and I just don't see the logic in that.

They are in an experimental stage, and most scientists when they talk about this I have spoken to are actually doing research into these genetically modified organisms are shocked. Like they don't believe they should be implemented yet. They are not in the stage where they understand the full impact of this technology, not only on our health, but on the environment.

This is a change we are making, a genetic change in those organisms. It's something that can reproduce itself. What if, for example, a genetic altered wheat crosses with a wild form of grass? This is a kind of pollution in a sense. We are calling it genetic engineering. It's not just pollution that's going to degrade itself. It's pollution that's going to continue to reproduce itself for generations and generations.

And we have no way of seeing what the impact of that is on the world. We live in a complex world, and no scientist would ever claim to understand the subtleties of this world that we live in, the biological world.

And I just think that a lot of the reason why this technology has been put in place before our full understanding has been outlined is because of the money that the companies invested in it. They have invested huge amounts of money in the research. I guess that means I'm done, right?

MR. ALLBEE: Just summarize.

MS. SHEEDY: So I just feel that this technology which is very much at its developing -- its developmental stages has great potential for good. But also great potential for bad, because the people who have the power to implement these technologies have something very different as a role. That is to make money. It's not to help the needs of the people or a planet, environmentally or otherwise.

Their goals are simply ones of making capital increase and profits, et cetera, et cetera. We all know the lines.

And I just feel that we really need to take back that control of this technology or else we will be in trouble.

MR. SCHUMACHER: One question, please. You're here as a scientist. I've heard of fish being crossed with tomatoes. That would be fishy tomatoes. But how do you differentiate the work that is done on hybridization in terms of the tools hybrid seeds can't retain, new every year, versus what is going on in some of the (inaudible). Differentiate these techniques in that sense. How would you differentiate those?

MS. SHEEDY: It's actually quite a clear distinction. Hybridization is a cross breeding of the same species. Or oftentimes of their close relatives, so that you get a product that could easily happen in nature. You're taking a biological process and just conjoining it closely with a little helping hand of humans.

What's happening with genetic engineering is they are making crosses that would never, ever happen in nature. They are (inaudible) I don't know. I'm sure you can all remember the orange citrus losses in Florida is one. Because of frosts. When is the last time you heard of this happening?

MR. SCHUMACHER: Last year.

MS. SHEEDY: Was it last year?

MR. SCHUMACHER: They are moving the citrus in Florida, central Florida, they moved it too far north, and the frost kept hitting it.

MS. SHEEDY: I think it was an ice storm last year which caused problems in the citrus industry, but basically what they have done in a lot of cases, they have taken a gene from a fish which actually produces an antifreeze, which is a common antifreeze so its blood doesn't freeze. They thought great, let's insert this into oranges so they are not affected when the first frost comes. You know. (inaudible) but the frost no longer effects it the same way. Now that would never ever happen under natural circumstances.

And we are really pushing the limits of nature. And we don't -- it's never been done before. And we don't fully understand the effects yet. It's all that I'm saying. And I don't think that we can, given the short time that science has been around, fully understand those effects until we give it more time to develop, and under close observation.

You know, it's not -- I don't think it's right to put this on to a population which has no choice about whether or not to take this experiment without asking their input.