AT a conference last October, I listened to a speech by Gregory Benford, a respected biophysicist and acclaimed writer of science fiction. He noted that the 19th century had been dominated scientifically and culturally by chemistry, the 20th by physics, and predicted the 21st would be dominated by biology.

Professor Benford is undoubtedly correct that the coming "Biological Century" promises staggering benefits, benefits likely to rival those wrought by chemistry and physics. But there will also be resistance. Before we can judge how to react to biological developments and their opponents, it may be helpful to consider some relevant facts.

One important point is that biotechnology has already produced many useful innovations. For example, bioengineered human insulin has reduced the discomfort and inconveniences of diabetes. Drought- and disease-resistant crops have dramatically improved yields worldwide and reduced the need for fertilizers, pesticides and cropland. Perhaps most impressive of all, the ambitious Human Genome Project is already increasing our knowledge of genetics and revealing the causes of many inheritable diseases.

Consider one potentially beneficial innovation: synthetic bovine somatotropin (BST), a replica of the hormone that stimulates lactation in cows. Synthetic BST supplements cows' natural hormones, increasing milk production by an average of 9 pounds per cow per day. It is environmentally beneficial because it increases the amount of milk that can be produced from a given amount of grains and grasses. But such wonders are costly. Monsanto, a leading pharmaceutical company, spent an estimated $300 to $500 million developing BST during the 1980s.

BST has undergone extensive safety testing. In 1985, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determined that its use poses no danger to humans or cows. The FDA found that milk from cows treated with BST is virtually indistinguishable from other cows' milk. It has the same proteins, nutrients and concentrations of BST as milk from untreated cows. The National Institutes of Health, American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics and World Health Organization have also found BST to be completely safe for humans.

In spite of the financial and research investments made to ensure BST's effectiveness and safety, certain groups have strongly opposed its introduction. The opposition has three sources: genuine fears that modified organisms may be harmful to humans or the environment; political entrepreneurs who seek to benefit by creating a crisis atmosphere, and special interests whose political privileges are threatened by its introduction.

Such opportunistic opposition to innovation has great risks. It can increase the already significant costs of developing products like BST, slowing their rate of introduction and denying people their benefits.

Apprehension regarding BST is understandable and I, too, urge caution. But after years of study and research, little, if any, danger is likely. Bioengineered organisms have caused no harm to people or the environment even after dozens of field tests and the escape of millions of microbes from laboratories. The National Academy of Sciences, Ecological Society of America and most DNA biologists agree that biotechnology poses minimal risks if properly monitored. BST is no exception.

The opposition voiced by political entrepreneurs and special interests is less principled. As demonstrated by the Alar scare (not a biotech product), these groups are quite willing to purposely mislead the public through incorrect science and media hype.

Jeremy Rifkin is perhaps the most prominent political entrepreneur in the realm of biotechnology. Rifkin has made a career from fear-mongering - authoring numerous anti-technological books and running his "nonprofit" Foundation for Economic Trends. Ignoring scientific evidence and preying on the public's lack of information, he has implied that BST and other biotech products are unhealthy or unnatural. By creating public opposition, he increases the pressure on legislators and regulators to institute policies that slow biotechnological innovation.

The conflict over BST is a harbinger of things to come. If selfishly motivated individuals are allowed to manipulate public opinion and the regulatory process without being accountable for the accuracy of their facts, we will seriously curtail the development of biotechnology. This would be an enormous tragedy because the benefits it promises are immense and within reach.

The century of biology is neither guaranteed nor automatic. If it is to blossom we must ensure that regulatory decisions follow sound science and the interests of the citizenry, not the machinations of special interests. The alternative will leave all of us poorer.