Plant Physiol, August 2000, Vol. 123, pp. 1201-1202
EDITOR'S CHOICE
The Genetically Modified Organism Conflict
Chris
Somerville, Member of the
National Academy of Sciences
 |
ARTICLE |
Few readers of this journal will have failed to notice the recent
uproar, particularly in Great Britain, concerning the release of
genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In response to the demands of
activists, European governments have restricted the import and release
of GMOs, and activists here and abroad have taken to destroying field
plots and in one case firebombing a laboratory. Multinational
corporations, anxious about preserving the public virtue of their brand
names, have declared themselves GMO-free in response to as little
provocation as a single letter of inquiry concerning their position on
GMOs. Hundreds of Internet sites proclaim the evils of GMOs, and some
newspapers and radio commentators, especially in Europe, fan the flames
of public fear by uncritically publishing activist propaganda.
Like most scientists in the United States, I have watched quietly as
this charade has unfolded. I would greatly prefer to spend my time
doing science rather than getting caught up in the public debate of the
moment. During my long and happy retreat into the ivory tower I have
seen many rancorous public debates come and go without the necessity of
my participation on one side or the other and without too much lasting
harm to the republic. However, because of my enthusiasm for the
environmental benefits that could result from many applications of
plant biotechnology, I have recently participated in a number of public
discussions concerning the current and future applications of the
technology. My general view of the technology is that many useful
applications do not have deleterious side effects, but that some of the
things that could theoretically be done should not be pursued because the potential for negative consequences outweighs the benefits. My
experience with American audiences is that most people are intrigued by
both the science and the promise of utility, but apprehensive because
of the strident and well-publicized claims by activists that GMOs are
dangerous to health and the environment. The opponents of the
technology have framed the issue as black and white
GMOs are dangerous
and must be stopped. Proponents are faced with the difficult task of
trying to educate the public about the many shades of gray.
One of the ironies of the current conflict between the proponents and
opponents of GMOs is that the technology is inherently green. I cannot
help but think that if the technology had been advocated by any sector
except multinational chemical companies with an eye on the world
market, the technology would have been embraced by environmentalist
groups in much the same way that windmills and solar cells are. Indeed,
I remain optimistic that politically neutral groups such as the
Environmental Defense Fund and the Sierra Club will eventually endorse
many of the potential applications of plant biotechnology. The greatest
threat to biodiversity is expansion of agricultural land and, in the
end, any technology that can help stop the expansion of agriculture and
minimize chemical inputs will probably be welcomed by
environmentalists. However, based on my encounters with opponents, I am
of the opinion that not all of the organizations involved in the GMO
debate are politically neutral. Indeed, much of the rhetoric concerning
GMOs has very little to do with the underlying science and a lot to do
with other issues such as industrialization of agriculture and control of the food supply by [American] multinational corporations. My impression is that many people who reject the silence of capitalism on
issues of social equity have been attracted by the eco-reactionary groups who, among other things, oppose GMOs. The recent unrest concerning the release of GMOs and the protests at meetings of the
World Bank and the World Trade Organization bear witness a new
manifestation of a familiar political conflict.
To the extent that GMOs raise social issues, there should be a vigorous
public debate. However, I think it is damaging to science to have the
terms of the debate focused on scientific issues in a forum that does
not support the traditional values of scientific discourse. The
pronouncements of professors are much less interesting to the media
than those of protestors dressed as corncobs. The challenge facing
scientists is to try to ensure that decisions about scientific and
technical issues do not become linked to underlying social conflict. I
think it possible that the debate about GMOs is symptomatic of a larger
social trend that has profound consequences for scientists. We are
entering a new era in which the social value of science and technology will be under attack by political groups that are looking for simplistic solutions to the many changes that are sweeping the planet.
Because science is a powerful agent of change, scientists will
increasingly be viewed with suspicion or worse. I think that to avert a
downward spiral of mistrust, we must become more involved in public
discourse. The GMO issue is a tremendous opportunity for plant
biologists to engage the public on a topic in which they are
interested. The first step is to become informed about the issues. We
cannot be effective participants in public discourse if we do not know
the facts and the competing arguments. In addition to articles in
journals such as Science, Nature, and
Nature Biotechnology, I have found the online discussion
group and archive organized by C.S. Prakash at Tuskegee University
(Tuskegee, AL) to be a valuable source of informed discussion and news
(http://www.agbioworld.org/). Klaus Amman at the University of
Bern (Bern, Switzerland) also moderates a very useful newsgroup
(klaus.ammann{at}sgi.unibe.ch). The second step is to become
proactive and to use the media to promote discoveries and dispute
falsehoods. The American Society of Plant Physiologists (ASPP) has
published a short document that outlines some of the criteria for the
design of letters to newspapers and journals. In addition, the ASPP
Education Foundation (http://aspp.org/edfn/edfn.htm) is
currently planning the production of some high impact educational materials such as films. Finally, make your views known to politicians and encourage the people you work with to do likewise. The Internet has
revolutionized the process of interacting with government agencies and
politicians. When you become aware of an opportunity to comment on a
federal rule or piece of legislation, take a few minutes to express
your opinion. Many politicians are enthusiastic about the benefits of
science and technology and are willing to work to support the
scientific enterprise (Bond, 2000
).
| |
FOOTNOTES |
Chris
Somerville, Carnegie Institution, 260 Panama Street,
Stanford, California 94305
| |
LITERATURE CITED |
-
Bond CS
(2000)
Politics, misinformation, and biotechnology.
Science
287: 1201
[Free Full Text]
© 2000 American Society of Plant Physiologists
TOP
ARTICLE
LITERATURE CITED
