What a turnaround. I started writing an article on Steve Long’s photosynthesis study. This work seemed to have no negatives about it, and Long’s theoretical improvements to photosynthesis would produce all kinds of dreamy benefits. (This was my impression, not necessarily his.) I saw fields bursting with giant-sized ears of corn and wheat stalks. I saw myself laughing at former worries over electric bills as I lazily lay on my roof among super-efficient solar panels, which were made possible by Long’s work and my reporting of it. Egging on my daydreaming was “Why Study Photosynthesis?” by Devens Gust. I expected more rosy images of the future as I called David Kramer. He too would have only kudos to give Long’s work.

Crash. Not so. “I don’t think there’s an advantage at present for the plant to be more efficient [in terms of photosynthesis].” I don’t think it was even what he said so much as his tone: cautious, careful, and painting a lot more gray into the picture of the effects of Long’s study.

But, some beautiful paintings have a good bit of gray, don’t they?