May 13 2000 / Yorkton This Week & Enterprise / David Suzuki
Suzuki writes that although he is no longer active in genetic research, he
still follow debates in this field with interest. That's why, Suzuki says,
he is troubled by the lack of analysis in the media about serious issues
raised by genetic technologies.
For instance, an editorial last week in a Vancouver newspaper casually
dismissed concerns about the ecological implications of genetically
modified food crops and blamed bad public relations by biotechnology
companies, and public distrust of scientists and government for the "near
hysteria" that has resulted. The editorial implies that any rational
person, properly educated, would whole-heartedly embrace this new
technology. But the editorial writer must not read his or her own
newspaper because in previous weeks there had been a reasoned debate over
the benefits and risks associated with these crops on the same newspaper's
Commentary page.
Hysterical rants on either side of this debate do a disservice to all. But
so do dismissals of legitimate concerns. At this time Suzuki says he cannot
support the widespread use of genetically modified food crops because he
believes that current testing has been inadequate and industry-biased.
However, it would be foolish to dismiss the technology out of hand.
Indeed, GMOs may have a future in this world if current rates of
environmental degradation continue. Crops engineered to withstand drought
or high salinity, or crops with built-in vitamins or extra protein may
need to play a role in future food supplies.
But we are doing ourselves and future generations a disservice by rushing
to get GM crops into the fields -- not only because of the ecological
implications, but also because focussing on this technology ignores the
fundamental issues of food supply and distribution. In terms of absolute
food production, we can currently provide enough food to feed the world's
population, yet millions of people go hungry every day. Why? Poverty. And
that's something gene technology cannot fix.
Yet in spite of mistakes we've made in the past with once highly touted
creations like DDT, PCBs and ozone-depleting CFCs, we continue to embrace
new technologies without considering their implications.
For example, last week newspaper headlines across the country heralded
cloned cows that have longer telomeres than standard cows. In theory, this
could mean that the cows may live longer than normal. However, aging is a
complex process and telomere length is likely just one of many factors
determining life span. Furthermore, it wasn't long ago when the cloned
sheep Dolly was found to have shortened telomeres. Clearly we must
interpret early observations in this revolutionary area with caution.
Nevertheless, newspapers trumpeted the findings in cows as "a step closer
to engineering human immortality."
Even if that was a possibility and we could "engineer immortality," what
would we do with all the extra people? We are already pushing the
ecological limits of our planet. Within a short time, the Earth would be a
very crowded place. Further, who would receive this technology? How would
population be controlled? The issue raises fundamental environmental,
social and ethical questions that are not even touched.
Technology is supposed to aid and help people. But now we are being driven
by the technological imperative -- the push to create and unleash new
technologies first and ask questions later.
(posted without permission)
