Risk assessment and risk management of transgenic fish

Risk assessments are performed every day in a variety of private and public organizations. The methodology has improved with experience, and the development of tools to perform better assessments of possible risks, and the adequacy of proposed risk mitigation. The suggestion that risk assessment should include subjective assessment of social, cultural, or economic needs for new technology troubles me greatly, because there are no clear unambiguous standards upon which to base such an assessment, and reasonable people undoubtedly differ greatly in their perspective and value basis for reaching those decisions. Furthermore, if we accept there are data gaps in our ability to anticipate unforeseen consequences,we should apply the same uncertainty to any consideration of "value" of a new technology.
Secondly, to suggest we cannot address risk of transgenic fish without filling our human capacity and data gaps presumes we know how to fill those gaps, and have the resources to do so. I would posit we can approach these issues on a case by case basis, and evaluate the risk a particular application may represent on its merits, and on the merits of the proposed risk mitigation steps proposed by its sponsor. The effectiveness of those steps should be measurable, and there must be consequences if subsequent experience demonstrates the risk assessment was flawed. I believe to do otherwise unfairly constrains the sponsor to addressing a hypothetical case, for which there is no  definable endpoint.
Lastly, I believe our national and international bodies have the capacity to perform thoughtful and meaningful risk assessments, and to evaluate new technologies objectively, solely on their merits. Suggestions of a multi-stakeholder public process merit consideration, and there are certainly opportunities to involve experts to improve the process. In my view, however there is a responsibility to assure the process does not deteriorate into a subjective, and nonproductive debate involving attitudes that are outside the precise confines of an objective consideration of the issues. There are many examples of issues in our daily lives where well meaning people disagree for moral, religious, or political reasons. They are entitled to their beliefs, and to the personal choices derived from their beliefs. However, I believe to unfairly restrict new technologies based on minority views would be a failure of our responsibility to the remainder of our global society.