A recent ruling by the state Intermediate Court of Appeals affirming that growing alien, genetically engineered algae in an outdoor environment requires an environmental assessment has sparked the latest commotion over our decades-old state environmental review law. This time, it's the state Department of Agriculture and the biotech sector hoping to stampede the Legislature into gutting the law's basic protections, by foretelling the sky falling on biotech research if those who hope to gain from it must publicly analyze and disclose the environmental impacts.

Much of the controversy stems from fear mongering by the state administration, which has taken an extreme "cold or hot" approach toward dealing with the environmental review law. After stubbornly refusing to obey the law's requirements, the Department of Agriculture is now overreacting to being corrected in court by threatening to shut down importation of organisms unless the Legislature caters to the agency's and industry's wishes.

Underlying this behavior is a deeper, ongoing resistance among our government regulators and regulated industries like biotech to embracing public openness and accountability for the environmental risks of their actions. This continues to prevent us from achieving a sensible balance between promoting business and protecting our island environment and communities.

Consider genetically engineered algae. In 2005, community members in West Hawai'i discovered plans to import and cultivate on the Kona coast "biopharmaceutical" algae genetically engineered to produce unapproved, experimental drugs. Had an enterprising Advertiser reporter not inquired about the proposal, no member of the public would have known.

Citizens immediately started asking questions, pointing out the dangers of introducing the alien species to our environment and recommending safer options. These people included the scientist who documented the existence of the host organism in Hawai'i, a former employee who helped build the algae manufacturing equipment and a medical doctor who tested drugs internationally, not to mention many residents who use the coastline around the proposed facility to fish, gather limu, swim, surf, camp and picnic.

Everyone wanted answers, and rightfully called for an environmental review as required by law. The state Board of Agriculture ignored their request without even trying to explain why. A couple of months later, Earthjustice, on behalf of community groups, obtained a circuit court ruling compelling the required review.

This case highlights the reason for the environmental review law: to protect the public by examining in advance the potential downsides, and not just the claimed payoffs. Any venture capital company can promise jobs but skip town if things go awry, leaving us to deal with the mess. We've already seen enough of the ravages of alien species to know what a costly mess that can be. Yet, without the input of the public in the algae case, the Department of Agriculture was relegated to taking the applicant's self-interested assurances on faith.

The Department of Agriculture's current overreaction aside, the court's ruling should not cause the sky to fall on biotech research. Exemptions exist for routine work without a likelihood of environmental impact.

Other projects may require an environmental assessment if their impacts cannot qualify as truly minor. Far from being a burden and bogeyman, such assessments should be respected as a basic step to answer whether a project "may" have significant impacts. They are not as costly or time-consuming as their opponents like to suggest, and they afford the only means the public has to determine if a project is potentially dangerous. Our environment and communities deserve nothing less.

This may not satisfy some industry advocates who blame so-called "activists" and courts for making Hawai'i "bad for business." Such accusations are wearing thin. Similar noises were heard when the Hawai'i Supreme Court rejected the Superferry's calculated attempt to escape environmental scrutiny. Now, time's passage and the state auditor's ongoing investigation confirm not unfair surprise, but evasion of the law by the defendants.

After repeated, unanimous decisions by our courts enforcing the law's requirements, including the genetically engineered algae and Superferry cases, and the Koa Ridge development case in Central O'ahu, the complainers need to stop pointing fingers at others, and start getting with the program that the lawmakers of Hawai'i and virtually every other state, and the federal government, have required.

Being "good for business" in Hawai'i does not mean gutting our environmental protections to give a free ride to any activity as long as its proponents dangle the prospect of jobs. The sooner the biotech industry and its government partners appreciate that good business in Hawai'i includes informed and responsible stewardship of the environment that we all must share, the better off we all will be.

Isaac Moriwake is an attorney for Earthjustice. He wrote this commentary for The Advertiser.