SF Gate, the online version of the San Francisco Chronicle, recently asked its readers, " Should the state plow billions into the nanotechnology vision? " Here are the results:

-- Yes. The dividend includes tax dollars and jobs in the long run. 17%
-- No. A billion- or trillion-dollar industry doesn't need our ante. 41%
-- Good idea. But get industry to put the payback in writing. 41%
I love a misleading survey question as much as the next person, but what if instead of asking,

" Should the state plow billions into the nanotechnology vision? "

they had asked,

" Should the state invest a small portion of its revenues in nanotechnology to accelerate its multi-billion dollar economic benefits? "

This is another case of the question' s format predetermining the answer. Also, a simple yes or no answer is the only way to ensure credible results. Adding commentary like, " a billion- or trillion-dollar industry doesn't need our ante, " is sure to prejudice respondents. And what' s the point of adding, " get industry to put the payback in writing " ? Who is " industry " ? And so what if they put it in writing? As I recall we had something in writing from the savings and loan industry prior to the multi-billion dollar bailout taxpayers are still footing the bill for.

I suppose SF gate polls are done tongue-in-cheek anyway, or they are, like USA Today polls, engineered to support predetermined points of view rather than provide meaningful data. But tongue-in-cheek or not, the result is a poll suggesting that Californians reject the idea of spending tax revenues on nanotechnology. Michael Crighton will no doubt cite it as " scientific evidence " in his next novel.