Recently the genome of the black cottonwood was "unraveled" by geneticists, making it the first arboreal species to have its genetic makeup laid bare. This of course opens up the possibility of altering certain specific aspects of the tree's genome to develop faster growing, trees which will produce wood that can be used more efficiently. It also virtually guarantees that a lot of environmentalists will completely freak out.

The Economist has a really nice article which covers some basic arboreal physiology (I'm sure pete will let us know if there's anything questionable in that section) and explains exactly how trees might be improved for human use.

There are a 1,001 different of concerns about genetic modification, many of which rely on the premise that it is "unnatural." I’m inclined to reject these since they fundamentally separate humans from "nature" [see pete's post: Conservation: A Philosophy]. Most (though not all) of the remaining concerns revolve around possible consequences of gene escape. These do worry me, but primarily with regard to genes that cause plants to produce their own pesticide or herbicide.

Genetic modifications based on Bt are environmentally controversial. On the one hand, they reduce the amount of pesticide needed. On the other, there is a fear that the gene might “escape” from crops into wild plants that form the foodstuffs of benign insects. In the case of trees it might not even be necessary for the gene to jump species. GM trees, with immunity to insect pests and faster growth rates than their unmodified competitors, might simply spread by the normal processes of natural selection.

Speaking of natural selection, happy 196th birthday to Charlie D.