May 5, 2000 / USA Today
Truth. You don't need the imagination of Mary Shelley, author of
Frankenstein, to understand the public fear of biotechnology -- that some
great hazard will be unwittingly unleashed. Those fears are, according to
this editorial, part of the reason millions pay a premium for food they
believe to be all-natural: bottled water and organic products, for instance.
Similar fears color the view of genetically altered foods, a fact that this
week prompted the Clinton administration to let companies label food as free
from bioengineering. This would allow marketers to promote the naturalness
of their products. Conversely, they could use a label advertising the
advantages of gene-altered foods.
This could be a monster itself. Almost every food today is, the editorial
says, gene-modified to some degree, so any terminology is apt to be
disputed. In 1998, efforts to define "organic" drew more than 110,000
critical comments.
That said, voluntary labels are preferable to mandatory labeling of
gene-altered foods, which would only amplify baseless fears. Consumers
should be able to choose foods based on naturalness. But those who would
damn all gene-altered foods with the stigma of a label act no less paranoid
than Mary Shelley's villagers who also drove away a scientific miracle.
Consequences. When it comes to biotechnology, some disclosure must be
rigorous.
Example: gene therapy experiments, in which subjects receive new genes to
replace missing or defective ones. In an example that the tactic works, two
French children with "bubble-boy disease" were recently reported to have
been successfully treated by inserting a gene in their bone marrow.
The dark side of the science is the way cutting-edge scientists may shave
down the edges of candor. In the past nine months, researchers conducting
two different experiments have been accused of operating outside strict
experimental protocols.
Most recently, the Food and Drug Administration accused a Boston doctor of
wrongly enrolling a test subject whose lung cancer was worsened by the
experimental therapy, and of failing to report the death of another subject
properly. Last September, researchers were accused of failing to inform a
test subject who later died of the risks.
The race for new cures (and associated riches) is part of what animates
modern science. Fair enough. But even desperately sick patients should be
fully informed of risks, and regulators should be fully informed of
failures. Otherwise, the village will stop trusting the scientists, and
torches will be lit.
(posted without permission)
