The Scientist | October 11, 1999 | George N. Davatelis
A few months ago, I wrote of my concern about the lack of public debate and discussion on the social and ethical implications of biotechnology.1
More recently, I posed the argument for a revisitation to the National Academy of Sciences "Asilomar" conference in 1975, which, as its predecessor, would help outline the myths and realities of recombinant DNA research and truly establish a proactive debate on science policy. Unlike its predecessor, however, the new conference I am proposing would include the lay public.2
I was somewhat heartened to learn of preliminary plans to coordinate a second Asilomar conference, although it appears that this conference would be an "invitational gathering meant to bring together the original Asilomar participants, as well as historians and other guests."3
As past is certainly prologue, I find it hard to believe that we are not learning from earlier miscalculations of public perception of biotechnology. Almost a decade ago, as the senior biotechnology officer for the U.S. State Department, I witnessed many contentious battles between policymakers (both within the United States and internationally) over the need for and modality of a Biosafety Protocol (BSP), the release of genetically modified (GM) crop plants and microorganisms, as well as the labeling of foods containing GMs, much like the food labels that state fat content and calories per serving. I am chagrined to report that since I left the State Department five years ago, nothing seems to have changed. We see the same people saying the same things to each other, resulting in a virtual stalemate in biotechnology policy.
For instance, recent reports about the ongoing United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, the parent of the BSP, continue to use the words "negotiations ... have stalled"4 or "[since 1995] this effort was headed for failure."5 Other reports continue to underscore concern about the use of GM plants in processed foods and debate the pros6 and cons7 of labeling biotech-derived foods. Still others report of the "miserably inadequate" way governments have dealt with overseeing the debate about whether GM crops will harm the people who eat them.8 A poll done last year by Thomas Hoban looked at the percentage of consumers who consider GM food a risk.9
A whopping 65 percent of Swedes polled said yes, they did consider genetically modified foods a risk. Sixty percent of Austrians followed suit, 50 percent in Germany, and 39 percent in the United Kingdom. In contrast, only 14 percent of Americans seemed to be afraid of the possible risks of eating genetically modified foods.
With the recent outbreak of "mad cow" disease in the United Kingdom, dioxin-tainted chicken and beef in Belgium, and fungicide-contaminated Coke from France, is it any wonder Europeans say that GM crops such as corn or soy that U.S. producers wish to sell to European Union (EU) countries are untested or even unsafe? In fact, we are already on the verge of a trade war with the EU about safety concerns with hormone-treated beef imported from the United States, and GM crops will only intensify the situation. Frankly, I don't think we anticipated such a consumer outcry in Europe and other parts of the world against agricultural and food biotechnology, and we are ill-prepared for a similar backlash should the U.S. consumer follow suit.
Given the ever-louder resonation of public concern about food safety, not to mention the ethical concerns we've seen on the nightly news about gene therapy and mammalian cloning, I think that a narrow focus for a second Asilomar conference is a major mistake. If food biotechnology has indeed become the lightning rod for the biotechnology debate, I believe that we will jeopardize biotechnology in the future unless the public becomes better educated very quickly on the scientific realities of genetic engineering of plants and animals (including humans).
A new Asilomar conference open to the public will both advance public understanding and increase the visibility of the benefits of biotechnology, which include new diagnostics and medicines for humans; dramatic impacts in controlling animal diseases; improved plant breeding that enhances plant performance and resistance to pathogens, as well as drought, heat, and cold; and enhanced protection to and cleanup of the environment. All of these wonderful accomplishments have contributed to increasing our quality of life, and future applications are certain to be even more dramatic.
I propose that the Asilomar2 conference should first endeavor to invite the best and brightest on both sides of the issues.
Papers and symposia could be presented on topics such as advances in bioengineering plants and animals, bioremediation, genetic screening, the use of DNA in identification, gene therapy, the risks and benefits of sequencing the human genome, and the understanding of human evolution. To ensure a truly open discussion, other interested parties could participate through an interactive Internet site that would offer continuous televised coverage of the proceedings and allow for real-time Q&A of invited speakers through a dedicated E-mail linkup. Moderators would act as "traffic cops" to avoid gridlock and keep the sessions running smoothly.
The products of the meeting could be disseminated in a variety of ways.
First, a proceedings document could be used as a policy guidebook to help lawmakers and policymakers to better understand the issues in their decisions on whether or not to regulate. Textbooks for university students and nontechnical summaries could go toward greatly accelerating the knowledge base for recombinant DNA techniques and issues for high schools and the general public. Such a document would be a powerful tool to educate laypersons about advances in molecular biology and the societal issues associated with recombinant DNA. Other expected symposium products would include articles in scientific journals and the lay press, educational materials, and electronic publications disseminated through the Internet.
To conclude, we need an open dialogue to discuss the positive impacts and possible problems (real or perceived) posed to society by the applications of DNA research and technology. Issues will continue to arise as more and more biotechnology products and processes arrive in the marketplace. To avoid another decade of stagnation and finger-pointing in biotechnology policy, let us use this as a golden opportunity to move the promise of biotechnology forward with the blessings of scientists, policymakers, and the public at large.
Many believe that the original Asilomar exhibited both the power and the compassion and responsibility of scientists. We should continue this tradition.
References
1. G. Davatelis, "The social dimensions of biotechnology," Genetic Engineering News, 19[1]:6, Jan. 1, 1999.
2. G. Davatelis, "Asilomar2: an idea whose time has come," The Scientist, 13[5]:12, April 12, 1999.
3. E. Russo, "Another Asilomar? preliminary plans under way," The Scientist, 13[5]:11, April 12, 1999.
4. E. Korwek, L. Zannoni, "Boon or threat to international trade in biotechnology?" Nature Biotechnology, 17:513?4, June 1999.
5. R. Rangel-Aldao, "'Biosafety' to assure underdevelopment," Nature Biotechnology, 17:515?6, June 1999.
6. M. Fulmer, "Activists push for labeling of genetically altered food," Los Angeles Times, June 18, 1999, page C-3.
7. H. Miller, "A rational approach to labeling biotech-derived food," Science, 284:1471?2, May 28, 1999.
8. H. Gavaghan, "Britain struggles to turn anti-GM tide," Science, 284:1442?4, May 28, 1999.
9. T. Ayers, "A tomato by any other name? U.S. and EC grapple with labeling," Science, 281:714?5, July 31, 1998.
