Many of Dyson's examples of how biotechnology will be applied to the real world seem a bit too extreme and sometimes even disturbing. Dyson says that Kindergartners may be able to compete to hatch cute dinosaurs, which implies they are manipulating DNA. He says may be messy and dangerous, but what other dangers are there in in this type of biotechnology? The dangers of re-introducing an animal that has been extinct for millions of years may not be as dramatic as Jurassic Park, but how does their renewed presence effect the current systems? It has been shown that invasive species can often disrupt and even destroy ecosystems if they are not compatible. For example, the jelly fish that have been carried into the Black Sea by ships are now devouring so much of the plankton there that the native anchovies, which the local people depend on, are now left with little food. Because this jelly fish is not meant for this habitat, it has no natural predators to keep its numbers down and is currently uncontrollable.
Dyson shows that his own work would have problems of compatibility when he discusses the plants with silicon leaves. Introducing this new element in their systems means that the entire plant would no longer be biodegradable. Before plants were able to die or drop leaves without leaving behind a substance that could not simply break down and become part of the soil, but now they will leave behind "silicon trash". Not only would plants start producing trash, but he asks if we should invent a "whole ecology of silicon-eating microbes and fungi and earthworms to keep the black-leaved plants in balance with the rest of nature". He also brings up the question of how we would control all these alterations when he asks if they would "invade and permanently change the natural ecology". The fact that we may have to invent a whole ecology of organisms to handle one new characteristic of a biotech altered plant, along with our questionable ability to control it, shows how attempting to manipulate biology on such a large and dramatic scale may lead to even larger and more dramatic consequences.
It seems that biotechnology is the opposite of biomimicry in its approach to biology. While biomimicry wants to study current biological systems in order to improve current technological systems based on nature's 3.8 billion years of experimentation, biotechnology wants to use technology to evolve biology into a new more efficient system. In other words, biomimicry wants to use biology to improve technology, and biotechnology wants to use technology to improve biology.
The idea of biotechnology as Dyson discusses it in "Our Biotech Future" all seems too extreme and dangerous at that level, but it begins to sound more practical in James Herman and Christopher Michael's responses to the article. They explain how biotechnology can be applied to medicine on a much smaller scale than what is mentioned in the article. It becomes an additional tool in diagnosis and treatment instead of the alteration of an entire ecosystem. Biotech to the scales that Dyson references in his article are too dangerous and will have too large of an impact upon a system that is not prepared for the unfamiliar consequences. However, it seems much more applicable in smaller scales such as medicine or seedless fruit, which does not require the creation of new types of earthworms. Maybe biotechnology will even lead to bizarre forms of fruit.

http://www.memebox.com/futureblogger/show/230-the-future-of-fruit
~Alice~