John Barrett explains to his curiously quiet genetics students the relationships between perceived and actual risk, the cost benefit analysis which drive most risk reductions, and perceptions of 'naturalness.'
"GM, which has never killed anybody," he begins, "has the same dread factor as war, nuclear power, and comes slightly higher than mugging. Three million people a year are exposed to pesticide poisoning, of which about 250,000 people die – many from Paraquat suicide, 750,000 who suffer long-term exposure have chronic effects, 37,000 who suffer chronic exposure have unspecific symptoms." (36)
Derek Burke quotes a list prepared by the Department of Health, headlined, "Risks are generally more worrying if perceived...
* To be involuntary
* Inequitably distributed
* Inescapable by taking personal precautions
* Arise from an unfamiliar or novel source
* Arise from man-made rather than natural sources
* Cause hidden and irreversible damage
* Pose some particular danger to future generations
* Threaten a form of death or illness/injury arousing particular dread
* Damage identifiable rather than anonymous victims
* To be poorly understood by science
* Subject to contradictory statements by reliable sources"
And, as he points out, GM soya scores 10 out of 11. "No wonder there has been so much trouble!"
All three academics, not to mention the Health Department, are correct. Without doubt GE technologies – even the dreaded Roundup-Ready varieties – have already reduced the use of pesticides by 50% in the US’s California Valley.
Potentially, GE varieties will be able to do much better than organic production which uses selective (though conventional) breeding, noxious copper sprays, corn varieties produced by radioactive mutagenesis, and storage practices which can harbour deadly fungicides.
In other words, the distrust that many people feel about the very practice of messing around with the innermost DNA of plants, animals and people, is not rational. Arguably, genetic modification holds a key to global sustainability. But at the same time, it also arouses society’s most deeply held fears -- primarily about creation.
Michael J. Reiss and Roger Straughton, in their book,
Improving Nature? The science and ethics of genetic engineering
attempt to set the rules for a careful and reasoned debate. Most important, the authors suggest, is to help people see the difference between morals and ethics.
Morals, it claims, relate to intrinsic, personally held, beliefs and values.
Ethics "suggest a set of standards by which a particular group or community decides to regulate its behaviour – to distinguish what is legitimate or acceptable in pursuit of their aims and which is not. One central task of ethics is usually taken to be a critical investigation of the fundamental principles and concepts that are used in moral debate."
A 1985 survey of attitudes towards technological innovation in food production revealed that 70% of British respondents thought genetic engineering (note how the language has changed) to be 'morally wrong,' 62% thought it 'unnatural' and 27% 'frightening.' (38)
The book concludes that the answer to the ethical debate over GM foods lies in education and the polling of public attitudes followed by a government system that takes heed of what the people say. "Our hope is that, whether via consensus conferences or other means, governments and other legislative bodies such as the European Parliament, will take seriously the need to obtain the informed view of the general public before framing legislation in the area of genetic engineering."
Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland is convinced that non-scientists have enough brain power to understand the complex issues involved. He describes "citizens' juries" put together by Dr Tom Wakeford of the University of East London, where groups of lay people "soon got their heads around the issue, lobbing highly detailed questions at the experts who came before them. Once they’d seen that the scientists disagreed among themselves, they felt it was legitimate to voice opinions of their own. By the end, says Wakeford, if the jurors had faced an exam on GM crops the vast majority would have got As."
Ziauddin Sardar reiterates a similar argument in the
New Statesman
of November 1999 when he talks about the pressures that have forced Monsanto to make a U-turn on GM food. His contention? That an increasingly literate public which combs the Internet for information and is aware of the latest issues in the field have simply out-smarted the experts.
Robin Grove-White suggests the introduction of GMOs has been hasty and badly thought through. "The way the regulatory system is set up is incredibly narrow. It doesn’t address important questions, such as: Where is all this leading? What are the motives behind it? What happens if it goes wrong? People know that you [scientists, politicians, industrialists] don’t know. We’ve had this experience before. This time they want to be cautious.
"I think it’s a matter of respecting the public’s intelligence about this," he continues. "In Britain the GM issue is the latest and most important in a series of blunders arising from the dominance of a particular scientific point-of-view. It’s a very simplistic view – that science is the rational paradigm of knowledge and that anyone who doesn’t buy into it is foolish and irrational. That basically the public is emotional, childish, captious and easily led by the media. This is calamitous. What was highlighted was the most reasonable way that people voiced their mistrust – and on the basis of very substantial past decisions. People are very measured, and very sophisticated, these days about what the media and NGOs are up to. I think they’ve got it just about right. There are a lot of uncertainties, but their minds are not closed – at this juncture people are saying 'no' until the broader issues and uncertainties are addressed. Because once we’re committed to this technology there’s no turning back…Politicians should assume that people are quite as intelligent as they are and rather more prudent not racing ahead impelled by the vicissitudes of trade."
However many others, such as Lord Soulsby, bring counter arguments: "I believe it is unethical not to use GM to alleviate the hunger in the world at present, especially when demand is going to outstrip food supply," he says.
We’re endowed increasing understanding of natural phenomenon and you could say it would be unethical not to use that knowledge for the betterment of mankind."
Lord Soulsby suggests consensus conferences similar to those used during the introduction of GM foods in the US, when trusted people – lawyers, doctors, churchmen rather than scientists – chaired public meeting where lay people could bring their fears and worries.
"In this country there’s a need for a better approach," he says. "We need to publicise what science is – not bogeymen but to show the potential for making people happier and healthier in so many ways."
The answer, as the writers, academics and some scientists such as Brian Johnson suggest, lies in an ethically acceptable international regulatory system.
Explains Johnson, "this is important to give some clear signals to the industry about where the boundaries between the possible and the unacceptable might lie. In other words, as with medical research and development, we may need an ethical framework to help science and industry develop R&D strategies."
Up until May 1999 however, when the Nuffield Council on Bioethics working party reported back, the British government seemed not to be taking public concerns seriously enough.
In a remarkable statement, which appeared to want it both ways, it concluded: "The working party concludes that the genetic modification of plants does not differ to such an extent from plant breeding as practised in the past as to make the process morally objectionable. GM technology is a tool which plant breeders are using to achieve their breeding goals more accurately and rapidly…Provided that caution is exercised with respect to potential side-effects such as allergenic reactions, we do not consider that the generation of such new combinations should be further restricted or even prohibited. Yet the novelty of the technology together with broader public concerns leads us to conclude GM crops should be recognised as such and that specific GM regulations should be maintained for several years."
Adds Harry Griffin, "What we want out of our system is an honest and focussed debate, and the knowledge that each application of GM food is judged on its own merits."
Footnotes:
Read the rest of this report:
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
| 6 |
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
GE links
GE glossary
GE discussion groups
