Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Looking beyond Today's Genetic Engineering The Futurist Sept-Oct 2005 v39 i5 p38(5) Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2005 World Future Society The promise of genetic engineering to conquer world hunger has not yet been realized. Researchers have produced genetically modified (GM) crops that are useful and interesting, but where are the high-yielding new varieties that were supposed to feed the masses? An element of fear has also crept into public consideration of genetic engineering's future. In the public's mind, genetic engineering's risks still outweigh its benefits--at least so far. In this time of environmental crisis, genetic engineering and other new technologies should be examined for possible flaws that indicate they might be environmentally hazardous or disruptive. On an ecological balance sheet, genetic engineering should be credited with both assets and liabilities. Consider these hits and misses in biotechnology's history: Toxic-waste cleanup -- a hit (potentially): Genetic engineering is now addressing the problem of toxic waste site cleanups by, for instance, modifying the genes of chemicaleating bacteria in order to improve their ability to detoxify waste. With many GM bacteria at work, a toxic site might be cleaned up less expensively than by using conventional treatments. Of course, field tests must be monitored carefully to detect unforeseen problems. The GM bacteria may be shown to be excellent performers, but it is also possible that natural bacteria may have the edge over their modified brethren. Nitrogen fixing -- a miss: Finding a way to use nitrogen-fixing bacteria more extensively has been a dream shared by many biologists. The bacteria colonize near the roots of alfalfa and other legume plants, and they provide their hosts with nitrogen obtained from the air. Corn, wheat, and other crops that do not have a symbiotic relationship with bacteria require applications of nitrogen fertilizer. Using genetic engineering, scientists tried to develop nitrogen-fixing bacteria that would live contentedly with non-legume host plants. Some experimental trials in the laboratory were somewhat promising, but field trials failed. The research was discontinued. Safer pest control -- hits and misses: Insecticides used to protect field crops are expensive and environmentally hazardous. Geneticists have succeeded in helping plants produce their own insect-killing toxin. From the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, they obtained a toxic gene, which they cloned and then transferred to plants. Cotton and corn genetically engineered with the Bt toxin genes are able to produce their own insecticide. On the negative side, there are still unanswered questions regarding the Bt experiment. Butterflies feeding on corn pollen have been killed by the Bt toxin, and other beneficial insects may be harmed. Also, if some target insects become resistant to the toxin, they will survive and breed new strains of hard-to-kill pests. Only time will tell if the Bt experiment was a success. Higher-yield crops -- raising concerns. The GM crops most popular with growers--corn, soybeans, and cotton--are high-yielding and possess other good qualities. For peak performance, GM crops require heavy applications of synthetic fertilizers, insecticides, and weed killers--chemicals that can damage the environment. But farmers who want to help save the environment are disappointed by present-day GM crops, because they believe the crops' dependence on chemical treatments is a serious deficiency. Also of concern to environmentalists is GM crops' limited genetic diversity. The spread of crop diseases is deterred in areas where farmers plant a number of different crops-and each crop is represented by many varieties with different genetic germlines. Today's mono-cropping--corn or soybeans as far as the eye can see--invites crop disease epidemics, and the problem is compounded by the widespread planting of genetically uniform GM crops. In the future, GM crops need to be tailored to the requirements of farmers who want to grow healthy, productive crops without incurring environmental damage. Science and the Common Good Scientific research in the public interest has long received support from the government. In 1861, when the U.S. Congress passed the Morrill Act, it seemed clear to legislators that the people should receive the benefits of government-aided research. This legislation created the land-grant educational system, with the objective of bringing to farmers, mechanics, and other working people valuable, practical information. Research projects supported by the Morrill Act were to be directed at aiding the common good. Agricultural research programs, for example, included breeding experiments that produced new varieties of corn, wheat, barley, and other crops. All work was for the public good, not tailored to the specifications of special interests. Today, procedures for reviewing research proposals now vary considerably in federal agencies, and it is likely that review boards do not always carefully consider the proposed research's relevance to the common good. "Is this proposal in the public's interest?" is a pertinent question in any setting where proposed research is being evaluated. Wherever public funding of research is involved, decision-making groups definitely should consider how new discoveries might impact the common good. But money has a way of clouding decisions. Universities now see an influx of dollars from corporations contracting for use of patent rights garnered from government-funded research. Among the many troublesome questions this issue raises in the research community is whether genetic engineering research could be compromised by catering to the interests of corporations rather than the public good. Needed: A Genetic Science Commission Unfortunately, even the scientific community has historically shown indifference to the social consequences of genetic engineering research--an indifference mirrored by policy makers. But the issues are too critical to ignore. Right now, there is no central planning and policyframing agency overseeing genetic engineering in the United States, although other nations have such agencies. Recognizing the importance of atomic energy, the United States created the Atomic Energy Commission. It is past time to establish a Genetic Science Commission. Currently, three U.S federal agencies share the responsibility for reviewing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The U.S. Department of Agriculture is concerned with protecting the welfare of agriculture and forestry; it appraises environmental risks that GMOs may pose. The Environmental Protection Agency, as watchdog for the environment, looks for environmental risks. The Food and Drug Administration, regulator of food, food additives, cosmetics, and drugs, evaluates GMO products from a consumer-protection standpoint. What is missing is long-range planning, careful analysis of biotechnology's problems and opportunities, and also a system for prioritizing research programs on the basis of national and global needs. The patent system now has a powerful influence on scientific research and development. Since 1980, the patentability of GM products issuing from federally funded research has helped the biotechnology industry grow to giant proportions. As long as the goal of research is to create profitable products rather than to solve agricultural problems, as some critics have charged, we may be developing GM products that sell well but that are not agriculture's most-needed products. Biotechnology research could be strengthened by a central agency that defined and prioritized genetic engineering research goals from the standpoint of the common interest. Researchers would be aware of these guidelines and would understand the rules that would be used in the awarding of federal research funds. Biotech's Global Ramifications When Monsanto Chemical, a biotech/chemical firm, announced plans to market seed of GM wheat, American wheat growers were upset. Economists had told them that world markets disliked GM food commodities, that a shift to GM wheat would cut U.S. wheat exports by half, and that this would cut crop prices by a third. The wheat growers protested loudly, and Monsanto suspended its GM wheat venture. When GM corn, soybeans, and canola finally won widespread adoption by U.S. farmers, export demand for these commodities declined. More than 35 countries now have restrictions on the importation of GM food. Much of the opposition to GM food is linked to safety concerns. Consumers are not able to prove GM foods are hazardous, but they are suspicious. Biotech supporters insist GM food is safe, but they cannot prove their point, either. Our experience with GM food has been brief, and it is possible that some genetically modified foods may contain allergens or toxic compounds. At this point, we just don't know. Instead of trying to convince the European Union and the rest of the world that they are wrong about GM food safety issues, the United States might end the present impasse by using a policy of accommodation. Expanded testing and analysis of GM foods would indicate the United States is serious about food safety. Also, it would be appropriate to pass a law requiring GM food labeling, which many countries have done. In the United States, food labels already carry a lot of information useful for the consumer's health and safety, so providing additional information on GM content of food would give consumers more choice. In opinion polls, a majority of Americans (up to 58%) say they would prefer to buy GM-free food if they had the choice. And, since international trading partners need to maintain good relations, GM labeling might help end today's global food fight. On another front of the global GM food battle is the relationship between patent hunters from biotech companies in the industrialized North and farmers in the developing South. "Patenting plant varieties from Third World countries robs farmers of their livelihood, and can have widespread repercussions," notes Mae-Wan Ho, director of the London-based Institute of Science in Society. New GM-food crops introduced into developing countries represent a foreign technology--one that is highly mechanized and dependent on costly chemical inputs. Sustainable farming systems for the Third World would add better soil and crop management to the crop-production practices traditionally used in an area. Biological control of insect pests and crop diseases could be achieved without use of chemicals. By helping Third World farmers construct practical, environment-friendly farming systems, the Northern specialists could make an enduring contribution to the people of the South. Tomorrow's Genetic Engineering The newness of agricultural biotechnology is partly illusory. Gene manipulation, leading to the creation of new life-forms, is a brand-new technique, but the genetically modified crop varieties currently available were designed to meet the requirements of an outmoded agricultural production system--one that relies on large inputs of chemical fertilizers, insecticides, and weed killers. The system is ecologically flawed, and today's GM crops do not correct agriculture's chemical dependency problems. Sustainable agriculture, with its lowinput, environment-friendly programs, offers constructive alternatives. We need to reappraise production systems and their components--judging them not by economic performance alone, but also on the basis of safety and sustainability. In such a reappraisal, some of genetic engineering's current products would fail to meet the mark. However, promising new developments are in prospect. For example: New genetically modified crops appear to thrive in saline soils and in stressful climates. GM bacteria may perform useful functions in waste disposal, in environmental monitoring, and in giving plants protection from frost damage. Scientists are trying to engineer disease resistance into American chestnut trees, which are highly susceptible to chestnut blight. Genetically modified plants may someday be an important energy source, supplementing our dwindling oil reserves. Continuing biotech research will bring new achievements. It is entirely possible that environmentalists and biotechnology specialists will learn to work together. The core problem of our time is how to make the world a more livable place--for ourselves and for future generations. Through their intensive searching for new GMOs, biotechnologists will contribute some answers. Additional answers will come from environmentalists who are intent on avoiding environmental damage and on minimizing depletion of natural resources. But cooperation between the two camps is complicated by unresolved issues, such as: Genetic pollution. Genes from GMOs may be transmitted to natural, unmodified organisms. This is a serious matter, say environmentalists, pointing out that the integrity of a gene pool infested by GMO genes has been compromised forever. But genetic change is inevitable, many researchers say, and genetic pollution may sometimes be beneficial, argues geneticist C. Neal Stewart Jr. A species that is under attack by a serious disease might get a new lease on life if it encountered genes from GMOs engineered for disease resistance, he points out. The precautionary principle. Genetic engineering development should proceed carefully under the close supervision of government regulators, environmentalists maintain. They cite the precautionary principle, which calls for careful consideration of all possible dangers before action is taken in a risky field filled with unknowns. Using this principle, Europeans are proceeding with a go-slow policy in regard to genetic engineering development. However, the American biotech industry wants to expedite development, not delay it. While some geneticists think today's regulatory system is adequate, others see the need for tightening regulations. How extensive the tightening should be is an open question. Role of the public. Genetics is a highly technical field of study, and many geneticists do not believe that ordinary citizens are competent to make intelligent decisions concerning genetic engineering. Environmentalists want to have the public involved in all decisions affecting public policy. To raise public awareness, they conduct teach-ins, forums, and other educational activities. Labeling GM food. Some advocates of genetic engineering say widespread demands for labeling GM food are nonscientists' emotional response to issues they do not understand. Others disagree. Paul F. Lurquin, a geneticist, says people should "be able to choose whether or not to consume food products containing foreign genes." Isolating GM crops. GM plants that produce pharmaceutically active proteins could be hazardous if grown in open fields. The place for them, it is generally agreed, is in secure greenhouses. If "pharm" plants must be prevented from crossing with other plants, why not restrict other GM crops? The idea of isolating GM crops has come up in political debates in many parts of the world. Bans on transgenic crops have been ordered for entire nations or merely for some lesser areas. Europe seems to be moving toward an area-by-area approach for segregating GM crops from regular crops, and the issue is alive in the United States. Partnerships between biotechnology and sustainable agriculture could enrich rural development programs in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The "godfather" of India's green revolution, M.S. Swaminathan, is establishing "bio-villages" throughout the southern part of his country. In each bio-village, sustainable farming methods are taught to impoverished rural people. Putting their new knowledge into practice, the villagers are improving southern India's ecology. In a bio-village, genetic engineering has a place alongside organic farming. To clean up wastes or polluted soil, villagers use waste-eating GM bacteria. They develop young trees through micro-propagation techniques and eventually plant them in reforestation groves. Dealing with the difficulties and unique possibilities of genetic engineering will require foresight, innovation, and strategy--and a level of institutional support that a national or even global Genetic Science Commission could provide. In the years ahead, we will need to avoid trying to solve momentous problems with quick fixes. Genetic engineering--impressive though it is--cannot by itself cleanse and revitalize the global environment. Working in cooperation with conservationists, ecologists, and sustainable agriculture specialists, geneticists could help work out solutions to many of the world's most-pressing environmental problems. About the Author: Clifton E. Anderson is a University of Idaho professor emeritus in the field of agricultural communications. This article draws from his essay, "Looking beyond Today's Genetic Engineering," in Foresight, Innovation, and Strategy: Toward a Wiser Future (World Future Society, 2005). Document Number: A135506530 (c) 2005 by Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation company.