February 7, 2000
European Molecular Biology Organisation

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) were first created about 30 years ago. Nevertheless, they were for a long time of little interest to the general public. This disinterest seemed to reflect the ease with which GMOs began to solve problems in medicine and agriculture. For example, renewable supplies of human insulin produced by genetically modified bacteria quietly replaced the failing supply of beef insulin used to treat growing numbers of human diabetics. This application of GMOs was attended by no fanfares, despite the fact that it averted an ugly crisis.

Public disinterest changed into fear when it was revealed that medical blood products had been contaminated by HIV and Hepatitis Virus B, causing many deaths. More recently, the attempt to contain the BSE (mad cow disease) scare created a genuine state of concern, particularly in the UK. GMOs were not involved in these accidents. Nevertheless, in the public eye, GMOs, viruses, bacteria and DNA are all somehow infective agents, and therefore dangerous. Such perception of GMOs are among the more specific reasons that Europeans fear food derived from GMOs, and oppose the release of GMOs in the field. More generally, there appears to be a profound resistance to global agro-business. Likewise, the generation of a state of 'heightened consciousness' about GMOs is a prerequisite for the survival of the eco-corporations, such as Greenpeace. Finally, it is important for scientists to recall the horrible ways that ideas borrowed from Genetics were contorted and misused earlier this century. More sensitivity to public concerns is needed in the light of history.

In summary, it is important that scientists understand that the public's fears of GMOs are due to sound scepticism about a more general issue: the potential for negligence in monitoring food safety and health hazards. Unfortunately, that scepticism is strongly coloured by ideological preconceptions and insufficient understanding. There is not much that scientists as scientists can or should do about the ideological components, but there are things that can be done to increase understanding.

Is eating 'foreign' DNA or protein a health hazard? If so, we have been living dangerously throughout our entire evolution. Everything we eat contains foreign DNA and protein. Can we say then that any and all GMOs are safe? Certainly not! After all, we do know about toxins and other poisonous proteins (many conventional plants contain these naturally). That is why GM crops and foodstuffs are rigorously tested to determine whether or not they are 'substantially equivalent' to conventional ones (i.e. when analysed in a laboratory, in all important respects their characteristics are the same – within normal variation). We can not provide a blanket license for GMOs, but neither would it make any sense to condemn the technology out of hand. As scientists we need to insist that every GMO product be treated with the same concern as any equivalent traditional product. We need to insist equally strongly that reason and fact temper attacks against science and research that arise in the GMO debate. Under no circumstances can terrorism replace rational discussion.

The risk that some GMOs might have detrimental environmental consequences (many aimed at reducing environmental damage) must be studied, and balanced against the certainty that more conventional methods will continue to seriously damage the environment. Furthermore, perceptions of the risks inherent in GMOs ought to be tempered by an understanding that we are awash in a sea of natural mutant variants; populations of all organisms are made up of mutant variants, and genetic exchange between different species of organisms is a natural, if low frequency, event. The genetic engineering that humans perform is comparatively insignificant.

Nevertheless, we need to avoid the very unlikely events that could have undesirable consequences. That is why many safety tests are carried out on traditional crops as well as on GM crops. Without correct field tests of GMOs, the tangible ecological benefits that they offer are at risk. For example, genetically modified plants can be used to make biodegradable plastics, rather than using petroleum. Likewise, crops that require less intensive chemical support, or less water are clearly necessary for a sustainable agriculture. Also, modified crops that produce cheap, edible vaccines, or high levels of a vitamin A precursor to prevent a common form of blindness that afflicts millions in the third world, will soon be a reality.

Some of this research is viewed as 'unnatural'. Again, this is a matter of perception. Equally 'unnatural' have been the millennia of breeding to exploit the natural, mutant variation of organisms to 'create' plants and animals with more desirable properties e.g. increased yield or size, pest resistance and fast growth rates.

The human race (now 6 billion strong and growing) has entered an era in which conventional approaches to biological problems are reaching their limits. Agriculture needs solutions to problems such as chemical dependence, drought, high salinity and pests; solutions that conventional methods are not likely to provide. Similarly, demands for high quality affordable medical care for an ageing population, are unlikely to be met by conventional methods alone. There may be risks associated with some GMOs, just as there were risks associated with the introduction of other technologies that later proved safe and invaluable. Consider electricity.

But those risks should be weighed against the potential benefits. Without doubt many GMOs offer genuine opportunities to solve crucial problems faced by the entire human race.

For all of these reasons, and in particular in view of the enormous problems confronting mankind, molecular biologists need to continue both carrying out research and communicating with the public about the benefits and risks, as well as the rigour of current testing of GMOs. EMBO recommends that the current polarising debate be replaced by reasoned discussions. We must establish a platform that supports all who share an interest in improved standards of living while balancing the potential of science, the needs of society and the requirements of long term, safe solutions to global problems.

The European Molecular Biology Organisation:

the EMBO was established in 1962 with the aim of promoting molecular biology in Europe and neighbouring countries. Its activities are funded by currently 24 Member Countries, and carried out principally through the actions of approximately 900 molecular biologists who have been elected as individual members of EMBO. EMBO can be considered as an international academy which focuses on molecular biology in its broadest sense such that it can respond to newly developing areas which use molecular biology methods or attempt to describe biological events at the molecular level.

http://www.embo.org; e-mail: EMBO@EMBL-Heidelberg.de
ph. ++ 49 6221 383 031
fax: ++ 49 6221 384 879