Toronto Star | November 24, 1999 | Op-Ed | David Suzuki
David Suzuki, described as a nationally known geneticist and host of the TV program, The Nature of Things, writes in this op-ed piece that, I am a geneticist by training. Today, while I am no longer active as a researcher, I follow genetics, including the debate over genetically modified food.
Advances in genetic insights and technological manipulative abilities have been breathtaking. So the excitement surrounding genetics is understandable, but that's all the more reason to reflect deeply before rushing to apply it.
When I graduated as a geneticist in 1961, we knew about DNA, genes, chromosomes and genetic regulation. But today when I tell students what our hot ideas were in '61, they choke with laughter.
At the cutting edge of scientific research, most of our ideas are far from the mark - wrong, in need of revision or irrelevant. That's not a derogation of science; it's the way science advances. We take a set of observations or data, set up a hypothesis that makes sense of them and then we test the hypothesis. The new insights and techniques we gain from this process are interpreted tentatively and liable to change, so any rush to apply them strikes me as downright dangerous.
No group of experts should be more aware of the hazards of unwarranted claims than geneticists. After all, it was the exuberance of geneticists early in this century that led to the creation of a discipline called eugenics, which aimed to improve the quality of humanity's genes. These scientists were every bit as clever, competent and well-meaning as today's genetic engineers but they got carried away with their discoveries.
Outlandish claims were made by eminent geneticists about the hereditary nature of traits such as drunkenness, nomadism, and criminality, as well as those judged "inferior" or "superior." Those claims provided scientific respectability to legislation in the United States prohibiting interracial marriage. In Nazi Germany, Josef Mengele was a geneticist who held peer-reviewed research grants for his work at Auschwitz. The grand claims of geneticists led to the race purification laws and Holocaust.
Today, the leading-edge of genetics is in the field of biotechnology. The basis of this new area is the ability to take DNA (genetic material) from one organism and insert it into a different species. Human beings can't normally exchange genes with a carrot or a mouse, but with DNA technology scientists can make it happen.
But we have learned there are always costs. We only have to reflect on DDT, nuclear power and CFCs, which were hailed as wonderful creations but whose long-term detrimental effects were only found decades after their widespread use.
Now, with a more wise and balanced perspective, we are cutting back on the use of these technologies. But with GM foods, this option may not be available. The difference with genetically modified food is that once the genie is out of the bottle, it will be very difficult or impossible to stuff it back. If we stop using DDT and CFCs, nature may be able to undo most of the damage - even nuclear waste decays over time. But GM plants are living organisms. Once these new life forms have become established in our surroundings, they can replicate, change and spread, so there may be no turning back. Many ecologists are concerned about what this means to the balance of life on Earth.
Ergo, we should apply the precautionary principle with any new technology, asking whether it is needed and then demanding proof it is not harmful.
Nowhere is this more important than in biotechnology because it enables us to tamper with the blueprint of life.
We will only be able to say definitively that transgenic foods are or are not harmful to our health or the environment after they have been consumed by thousands of people over long periods, and have been out in open fields for many years.
With the widespread growth of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), we have become part of a massive experiment.
I would have preferred far more experimentation under controlled lab conditions before their release into the open, but it's too late.
Since GMOs are now in our food supply, we have become experimental subjects without any choice. That means, at the very least, food should be labelled if it contains GMOs so we can make our own choice.
