In pluralistic societies, innovations offering new ways to promote independence or individuality are generally rapidly embraced, whereas those that appear to centralize power and authority are either outright attacked, or accepted only after contentious debates.  Biotechnology, however, has repeatedly broken this mold, offering the potential for remarkably individualized products while also appearing to concentrate capabilities and power in the hands of a small number of global players. For example, biotechnology's promise to provide health care specific to individual needs goes hand in hand with giving corporations access to detailed genetic information.  Likewise, its potential to fine-tune food production to local needs coincides with concentrating the capabilities to do so in a small number of institutions.  Understandably, such scenarios have met with both support and opposition. The most recent, and perhaps the most contentious of the resulting controversies, has been the highly visible and ongoing debate on genetically modified (GM) agricultural products.  Many observers seem to be surprised by the sudden rise of this issue, and its origin is often ascribed to a lack of public trust in regulatory institutions