On October 11, 1939 what would become known as the Einstein-Szilárd letter was delivered to then President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The opening paragraph simply stated:
“Sir:
Some recent work by E. Fermi and L. Szilard, which has been communicated to me in manuscript, leads me to expect that the element uranium may be turned into a new and important source of energy in the immediate future. Certain aspects of the situation which has arisen seem to call for watchfulness and, if necessary, quick action on the part of the Administration. I believe therefore that it is my duty to bring to your attention the following facts and recommendations:”
Those facts and recommendations outlined in the Einstein-Szilárd letter would be the impetus for arguably the most successful scientific project of the 20th Century-The Manhattan Project. The scope with which The Manhattan Project‘s research efforts altered the course of modern human history is unprecedented. In retrospect, some may find it is easy to take sides in the debate over whether the atom should have ever been split. However, the practitioner of science will recognize that such a debate is irrelevant when viewed through the lens of the scientific method. Science is equipped to prove or disprove a theory not illuminate the grey. In that regard, the initiation of the first atomic explosion was nothing more than the culmination of a series of experiments to prove or disprove a scientific theory.
Therefore, in the same scientific spirit as The Manhattan Project, consider the following post an open letter:
To the Wine community:
The biological sciences have progressed to a point where the genetic manipulation of an organism is possible and in some instances has already occurred. It is inevitable that these technologies will be applied to Vitis vinifera subsp. vinifera, the cultivated wine grape, and those organisms responsible for the primary and secondary fermentations of must. We therefore initiate The Los Olivos Project, with the primary goal to illuminate how genetic, biochemical, and microbiological research will be applied to the production of wine. The traditionalist will argue that current viticultural and enological techniques are wholly sufficient to accomplish that which is proposed through the use of scientific intervention. Furthermore, some will argue such “unnatural” intervention will offend the sensibilities of individuals and societies with strong cultural and historical ties to viticulture and enology. Our only answer to such arguments is-IT HAS ALREADY BEGUN. Our goal is not to invoke fear or anger over the application of new biological research and technological advances to the production of wine. To the contrary, our only wish is demonstrate whether modern genetic, biochemical, and microbiological techniques can be utilized to test viticultural and enological theories.
We will leave the retrospective debate to you.
