The monograph, Biotechnology: Public Policy and the Social Sciences—Critical Needs in Teaching and Research [Biotechnology], emphasizes the need for social scientists to increase their participation in public policy regarding biotechnology through research, teaching and policy recommendations. The authors (Robert H. Blank, Lynton K. Caldwell, Thomas C. Wiegele, and Raymond A. Zilinskas) persuasively argue that critical issues are at stake here. Although scientific methodology and definitions underlie important choices regarding biotechnology, we face issues that go beyond scientific inquiry and expertise. Recombinant DNA research raised concerns in the late 1970s, which were sufficiently addressed through the NIH guidelines. Now commercial developments in biotechnology are posing other quite significant social and ethical issues. The idea that nonscientists should become actively involved in science policy is not new, but the message bears repeating. It has been standard practice in our society for technical experts to claim exclusive authority in broad areas of decision-making involving technical matters. Only recently, for example, have we begun to insist upon full disclosure from our doctors, and reclaim the right to make important decisions about our own lives and bodies. Technical experts cannot fully address ethical and social concerns. Moreover, in the area of biotechnology, experts have strong interests, both intellectual and financial; they are not likely to make unbiased decisions. These choices properly belong to the political realm.