The demise of SftP seems to be to have been due partly to the rise of molecular biology in the 70s and 80s and the displacement of the physical sciences as the most prominent set of disciplines by the the biological sciences. By "prominent" I mean both newsworthy and commercialized. Although there were biologists who were central to SftP, the culture of the organization owed a lot to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and the group of physicists and chemists who showed that it was simultaneously possible to maintain their standing as scientists and to oppose the misuse of their disciplines. Molecular biologists did not have this model, and indeed, since they were not tied to the fields producing nuclear weapons and reactors, and napalm, could define the aims and products of their work as entirely benign. When, in the 1980s it became possible to genetically engineer crops, and in the 1990s to clone and genetically engineer mammals, with the prospect of doing it to people as well, and to create DNA databanks, and imaginable to produce ethnically targeted bioweapons, and so forth, the Reagan-Thatcher ideology, along with the Chakrabarty Supreme Court decision on patenting of organisms and the Bayh-Dole Act on commercializing the results of publicly funded research had thoroughly taken hold, not just among conservatives, but particularly among liberals who had fewer qualms about human embryo research. Most of the senior scientists of the transitional period were by then principals in biotech companies, and the people trained during that period had no precedent of biologists questioning biology, the Asilomar interlude having been disavowed by its main participants. Add to this the fact that the genetic determinist and reductionist biology of the 20th century, though now unraveling, is still the ideology of most working biologists. Is it any surprise that there is no more science for the people?