So, something has to change. Forest biotechnology in it's widest sense has a role to play here. It will not on its own solve the world's environmental or consequent social problems, but it is hard to see how they can be reduced without meeting people's needs for wood and wood products first. I wish there was more time for dealing with all the issues involved, but there isn't. The potential gain is biggest in tropical regions, as trees grow much faster than in temperate regions and simultaneously the need for improvements is forestry productivity is also the most acute, primarily to meet the needs of the people living there.
Technology is about doing more with less.
I believe that forest biotechnology has a role to play here, when judged appropriate and safe - as already discussed by others. Incidentally, I would also include 'conventional' breeding in the definition, which itself is becoming increasingly sophisticated, and is aimed at skewing the traits of a population towards a desired end that would probably not occur spontaneously otherwise. Neither is it free of the potential to impact 'wild' populations, or running the risk of allowing exotic species or genotypes to escape into new areas. Dr. Trevor Fenning. Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology, Jena, Germany.