I agree – I got lost in all the qualifiers trying to figure out what was going on. I don’t think you need to tell us that the experiments are specifically about growth acceleration, for example. And you’ve referred to their size twice – the second is unnecessary.

Thematically, I want to see some irony, for example in John Bear’s irony. What makes John Bear the man for this job? Why would it challenge him? If this is the sort of thing he can routinely accomplish without really testing him, there’s no reason for me to be particularly interested. If you can establish John’s flaw in contrast to the problem at hand, you’ll have a lot more conflict to work with.

On a related note, you’ve got high stakes (massive devastation) but they’re still vague stakes. What happens if John fails? The guy who caused the problem and apparently stands to lose the most is a greedy, eco-system-destroying bastard – I don’t care if he loses his house or his plant. If things go wrong, John can walk away feeling a bit sheepish but personally unaffected. Give John a reason to care, and I’ll care more about John’s problem.