Vexed topic
There are times when I feel convinced that the ongoing arguments over the merits and hazards
of genetically modified crops have become tedious and non-productive. On both sides of the dispute
logic and reasoning have given way to temperamental outbursts in which the truth is impossible
to distinguish from sheer uncritical sentimentality.
In New Scientist for 5 April there is a reasonably pitched debate between scientists
who take different views of genetically modified products. The various points raised are worth
considering, in the hope that more evidence will be forthcoming and assist us towards coming
to a balanced view.
In the first place, one argument for modification is that the increasing needs of growing populations
for the mere necessities to preserve life call for more agriculture and better ways of averting
disease among crops. This may well be true, but in fact half our trouble with starving populations
is that other populations consume food to excess. Indeed, they do so to the point where obesity
has come to be a world problem among developed nations, while no one seems to have the will to
distribute more to the poverty-stricken. Moreover, farmers in many places are pressured into
reducing food production because too much upsets the market. So while we lament starvation we
promote "set-aside" policies in order to keep up profits. And the tremendous drive to develop
genetically modified crops is maintained by globally active commercial corporations and supported
by politicians who are really not in a position to judge what they are talking about.
On the other hand, we have the scientists who cannot agree on the possible risks in extending
time-honoured breeding techniques into the introduction of exotic genes into genomes. There used
to be a concept in safety evaluation called the precautionary principle, meaning that when in
doubt, cut it out. In general we apply this principle to new drugs and formulations, but do not
extend it to other materials that have become necessities in our civilisation. Evidence is scarce
and often inconclusive.
Again, there is the sore question of economic bias. So many scientists, even those in universities,
have grown to depend on some degree of commercial backing to keep their research going and, if
pressure is put upon them, it may take enormous objectivity and courage to resist a slanting
of the data. As Colin Tudge comments in the debate I have quoted: "Many scientists are alarmed
that so much food and farming research is now financed by industry. It is clearly easier to publish
results that support the industry line." And while it is clearly arguable that genetically modified
organisms might play an important role in food production, the reality is that the prime move
in developing effective techniques is to industrialise, corporatise and globalise food technology
without paying due attention to possible short-term and long-term hazards involved.
As Virgil put it in the first century BC, mankind suffers from auri sacra fames, "an accursed
hunger for gold." Other considerations come in second place.
Back to Top
|
In March, to start National Science Week, the Royal Society of Chemistry paid a tribute to
William Whewell by laying a wreath on his memorial in the chapel of Trinity College, Cambridge.
His varied contributions to the world of learning are many, but in particular he is credited
with inventing the word "scientist", a title that we use without thought. It was Samuel Taylor
Coleridge who in the early 19th century asked his friend Whewell if he could coin a more concise
term for what had been known as "natural philosopher" or "man of science". At about the same
time Michael Faraday persuaded Whewell to invent the new terms anode, cathode and ion.
