Bridge
News

Irrational Fear In The Age Of Biotechnology

In their now-legendary 1953 paper in the scientific journal Nature describing the structure of deoxyribose nucleic acid (DNA), scientists James Watson and Francis Crick wrote, ''It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material.''

Time magazine has referred to this as ''one of the most famous understatements in the history of science.''

In reality, of course, it marked an annus mirabilis. Since then, scientists have learnt how to cut DNA, how to change it, how to paste it together again and how to transfer it from one organism to another; and they have devised methods to measure it, to name it and to sequence (map) it.

By 1995, the non-infectious Rd type of the bacterium Haemophilus influenzae was the first true organism to have its full genetic alphabet revealed. This was quickly followed, in 1997, by commercial yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, and, in 1998, by the first free-living organism, a tiny worm, Caenorhabditis elegans. And we are soon to see that Holy Grail of the human genome, our very own alphabet of life, spelled out for us all to read.

We are standing on a great peak and a new country lies at our feet. But not everyone wants to explore this realm of adventure, or to face up to the scientific, moral and philosophical challenges that must be encountered on the pilgrimage. They fear human hubris; they worry that Homo sapiens is tampering with the work of the gods and that our fall will be terrible. They see Frankenstein emerging from the opium-crazed ideas of Mary Shelley into their own reality.

They are desperate to cabin, crib and confine the new science, like Galileo in his house at Arcetri. They seek an imprimatur on research. As Galileo wrote in his ''Two New Sciences'' (1638): ''For it is you who have thought to increase my fame by having these works spread their wings freely under an open sky, when it appeared to me that my reputation must surely remain confined within narrower spaces.''

Should biotechnology spread its wings and fly freely? And what should be the role of an independent university scientist at this critical moment when the battle lines have been drawn between those who fear the new technologies and those who wish to develop them for the future of humanity?

For me the saddest thing of all in this battle has been that first casualty of all wars, honesty. The attack on biotechnology in agriculture has been the fiercest and it has been characterized by the willful misuse of science.

The abuse of the original study on Bt corn pollen and the Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) was one of the worst examples. Despite carefully worded caveats entered by the scientists, and the fact that the study was a laboratory-based experiment which bore little relationship to field ecology, a myth was blazoned across the world that Bt corn (genetically modified to resist the European corn borer) would kill off not only all Monarch butterflies but most other insects as well. The detailed scientific rebuttals that followed inevitably fell by the wayside, ignored by a sensation-seeking media.

Of course, scientists themselves were partly to blame. They had ignored public relations and had forgotten that they must always inform and share their progress in a democratizing world. The first task of any independent university researcher, therefore, has to be to remind all colleagues of their ultimate responsibility to the public and to think carefully how they can best express complex scientific ideas to avoid unnecessary misunderstanding and fear.

Secondly, university researchers must always value and defend their own freedom and independence, even when funded by government or industry; this is surely a cornerstone of science democracy. The more biotechnology developments are tested by independent sources, the more they will have legitimacy.

But, thirdly, independent university scientists have a moral duty to speak out against irrationality and misinformation, especially when this might endanger the future of an advance vital for human development. For many extreme environmental groups, the enemy is science; it is knowledge; it is global capitalism, symbolized by the United States. In this crass narrative, all biotechnology scientists are seen as greedy, the lackeys of globalization.

The reality is starkly different. Thousands who work in the biotechnology industry, in Cuba, Mexico, India, China, as well as in the world's more developed countries, possess the highest ethics and work tirelessly because they believe that what they are doing is good.

Swiss researchers who are enhancing rice genetically to provide enough beta-carotene to satisfy the daily requirements for Vitamin A in as little as 300 grams of cooked rice speak movingly of their vision. They have also increased iron in the same plant, all of which was accomplished by placing seven new genes into a single strain of rice. Vitamin A deficiency (affecting some 400 million people) and iron deficiency (3.7 billion people) are two of the most serious nutritional problems in the developing world.

As a university scientist, I must defend such progress to the hilt against all the unreason in the world. The trashing of experiments designed to learn the truth is a crime against both reason and progress, and it is utterly unacceptable in a country such as the United Kingdom where there is a free vote, an independent judiciary and a relatively free press.

The task of the independent university researcher is thus to seek progress, but with safety. Outright opposition to biotechnology is untenable. Humans have only managed to survive pests and diseases, environmental change and population growth through their manipulation of crop genetics. Modern biotechnology is but the latest step. And, because of its precision, it may even be safer because traditional crossbreeding could lead to up to 15 percent of the genome being transferred.

This Galileo must indeed fly ''freely under an open sky.''

Philip Stott is professor of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London and editor of the Journal of Biogeography (Blackwell Science).