University
of Bristol

Without GM We Would Both Be Dead By Now

(This article first appeared in the Daily Telegraph)

During a recent debate, a young man decided he would make a dramatic protest about all forms of technology, especially the evils of genetically modified (GM) anything.

As we stood face-to-face in a somewhat confrontational pose, his thesis seemed to be that technology was so obviously wrong and evil. He was smoking a cigarette and objecting strongly to everything new, but never posed a question, proposition, reasoned argument or substantiated fact. He was just against everything.

The studs in his nose, tongue, ears, lip and eyebrows showed distinct signs of inflammation and infection. In addition, he displayed a wonderful range of interesting tattoos, and what might be classified as tribal markings or scarring on his arms. And, here again, there were signs of infection and discomfort.

At a suitable point in our heated conversation, I asked him outright if he was having treatment for his various problems. He was obviously taken back by my question, and replied that he was, and then he revealed that his doctor had prescribed a course of antibiotics.

At this point I suddenly got a brusque "what has it got to do with you anyway?" So I just stated that antibiotics, and most modern medicines, stem from GM biology stretching back decades, and in some cases, millennia. The reaction was very interesting. "Was I trying to be clever?" he snapped. "Of course not," I replied. "Just logical, rational and considered. After all, without GM we would both be dead by now and we would not be having this conversation anyway." The confrontation suddenly mellowed, and I suspect he was starting to contemplate a different stance. Well, I hope so.

Like many other people of my age group, I rely upon medicines that would not be available in the required quantities, quality and price if it were not for GM-based research, development and production techniques.

So why all the irrational media hype, suppression of facts, figures, evidence and an encouragement of public hysteria? Surely this is not all about circulation numbers, viewing figures and pure sensationalism.

If I was a believer of the conspiracy theory, which I am not, I might be tempted to think it so, but I suspect the forces behind this are far more potent and worrying. How about pure ignorance? Why would anyone want to damage a new science with so much proven potential for good?

Personally, I cannot bear to contemplate a future devoid of modern medicine, or indeed the future suffering and loss of human life resulting from a lack of medicines that we could have created through GM processes.

For industry and academia, the propagation of misinformation and fostering of irrational fears has been incredibly damaging. Leading British experts employed in the fledgling GM sector have emigrated to competing countries. They are now employed by the best institutions and companies which will no doubt sell us back our own intellectual capital in future years.

Why would we want to lay down our future prosperity at the feet of our competitors and encourage them to poach the best our universities and industry can produce? Could we possibly recover the situation? It seems to me to be very doubtful.

Only through a concerted campaign of public education, and freedom of information, might we discover sufficient truth to make rational choices and negate those protesting and manipulating, or being manipulated, by the media.

Peter Cochrane holds the Collier Chair for the Public Understanding of Science and Technology at the University of Bristol.