|
Posts: 7819
|
12 years ago
Edited: 12 years ago, duddy
Hard Questions About Genetic Engineering
Burkhard Mausberg
There is no doubt that genetic engineering has emerged as an important environmental issue. As the technology becomes increasingly common in the production of goods and services, serious questions arise concerning the potential for significant ecological damage. The challenge is to prevent the types of environmental problems society has experienced with previous technological revolutions. For example, regulators showed little foresight during the 1940s and 1950s, when the synthetic chemical and nuclear industries began to grow rapidly. Consequently, toxic chemicals and nuclear products have contaminated the environment and endangered human health. A similar mistake with genetic engineering may be more devastating, since these products are generally alive and can reproduce and spread, potentially causing damage well beyond their original location.
The technology is expected to develop very rapidly over the coming decades. As the technology becomes more powerful, we can expect all aspects of our lives will be influenced.
Moral and Ethical Concerns
Human domination of all other life is now being extended to the microbiological level. Species are being robbed of their natural development solely to fulfil human desires. Environmentalists have argued that such an anthropocentric approach to nature and natural beings will hardly lead to a sustainable future.
Moral and ethical concerns guide our decision-making for other issues, such as murder, theft, and child abuse. Similar attention to ethical considerations rarely enters the decision-making realm for high-tech and scientific applications. Why?
Potential Effects
Genetically engineered life forms may have several environmental effects, including:
• they may transmit or promote diseases that are infectious to humans, plants, or animals;
• they can expand beyond their niche, or prove destructive to nontarget organisms;
• they may survive and reproduce after their intended function is complete;
• genetically engineered crops that are pesticide-resistant may transfer this resistance to weeds and other plants; and
• genetically engineered species may disturb food chains or biogeochemical cycles.
One of the difficulties in identifying risks of genetic engineering is simply the lack of information about how new life forms will interact with the environment. In effect, the data base to make informed decisions is incomplete at best, or, more realistically, virtually absent. The predictive ability of the ecological sciences is almost nil. Indeed, prediction methodologies cannot even be developed when there are major information gaps regarding the nature of the organism, the nature of the ecosystem, and the interrelationship between the two.
What do we do as a society if we cannot scientifically evaluate the dangers of genetic engineering?
Are All Genetic Engineering Applications Appropriate?
Applications are being developed by genetic engineering that are not necessarily legitimate or in the public interest. Clearly, some products can be said to address the symptoms and not the causes of our problems. In forestry, for example, one of the areas where research is vigorously pursued is the development of genetically improved trees for quicker reforestation. These trees are supposed to be grown on clear-cuts. But are slow-growing trees the problem, or is the real problem the practice of clear-cutting? In agriculture, crops are being developed that will be resistant to pesticides and herbicides. Does this practice not reinforce the legitimacy of
spraying synthetic chemicals on crops?
How does society distinguish between legitimate applications and applications that ought not to be developed?
Public Participation in Biotechnology Decisions
Most environmentalists feel that there is insufficient public participation in the decision-making processes at all stages of genetic engineering. The right to participate in these decisions is justified for at least three reasons. First, and most important, the public will bear the risks associated with genetic engineering. Most decisions on genetic engineering are made only with an eye to increasing profit. While such benefits are distributed to few, the risks or damage will always fall on the public.
Second, public tax dollars support the development of genetic engineering through various research and industrial development programs. It is citizens who provide most of the funding to such programs, and they should have a significant input on decisions.
Finally, citizens will be the consumers of products derived from genetic engineering, and should have a right to decide which products they want to consume. Currently, consumer items are sold with the help of marketing firms, who create the desire for such items. Such corruption of consumption patterns cannot be accepted for biotechnology products.
Even though there are irrefutable arguments for public participation, citizens are essentially excluded from the decision-making processes. How can citizens be involved in decisions about genetic engineering?
Patenting and Intellectual Property Rights
Historically, the granting of a limited monopoly by means of a patent on the invention of a product or process has been regarded as a trade-off between public interest in the disclosure of the essential information in the patent, and the private need for compensation for the work of invention. However, the application of patenting to
the processes and products of life raises many serious questions about ownership and control, including:
• does patenting genes devalue life by making it a commodity?
• the ability to patent human genes could, in effect, result in the ownership of another human being; would this be a new form of slavery?
Biodiversity and Genetic Engineering
The relationship between genetic engineering and biodiversity is an important area of concern for environmentalists. The drive to breed uniformity in plants and animals, and further monocultures, may reduce biodiversity. Furthermore, genetically engineered species may disturb food chains, habitats, or ecological cycles, which in turn may affect biodiversity.
The analogy to introducing exotic species is often used when examining the ecological impacts of genetic engineering. In both cases, a new species is introduced into an ecosystem and the anticipated introduction is thought to be quite harmless. But there are many examples where exotic species have led to significant effects on biodiversity, including the gypsy moth, Dutch elm disease, and various species of plants.
How can biodiversity be protected while still pursuing genetic engineering?
Conclusion
Genetic engineering can produce important benefits. However, before proceeding with all kinds of applications, some important questions must be raised. Environmentalists are worried that unless these questions are addressed, the mistakes made in the chemical and nuclear revolutions will be repeated, resulting in more environmental damage. Let’s not hurry into a technology whose consequences we have not fully understood.
|
|
Read 1105 times
|
|
Quick Reply
