Strawberry Rhubarb
Like many other disputes, the argument over releasing genetically altered bacteria into the environment is not resolvable by facts alone. Advanced Genetic Sciences Inc. wants to spray a strawberry patch in Monterey County with laboratory-created bacteria that could substantially reduce crop losses from frost. Proponents say that the potential danger of the experiment is minuscule and can be discounted. Opponents say that though the risk may be small, the harmful consequences could be large, so all testing should be put off. Neither side can persuade the other. Ultimately it’s a matter of temperament (as it is with most things).
Still, it’s worth asking which side has the stronger argument. Concerns have been raised about genetic engineering for as long as it has been around, first by the scientists who pioneered the techniques of doing it. Mindful of potential hazards to the environment in creating new forms of life, they voluntarily suspended all work until the dangers could be assessed. At every stage of the development of this technology, caution has been the rule. Experiments have been run to assess the risks and make reasoned judgments. National panels established guidelines for conducting the work, and experimental techniques were reviewed. Independent scientists gave their approval. So did the government, acting on the consensus of informed people.
“But,” the other side continues to assert, “you can never be sure. No one can guarantee that the experiments will be safe.” According to this view, the experts are all knaves or fools. Biologists who say that it’s safe are dismissed as self-serving capitalists who dream of getting rich in the genetic-engineering business, and the government is viewed as being in the pocket of the large commercial interests that also see big profits ahead. The only way to make sure that there will not be an environmental catastrophe is by not spraying the bacteria on the strawberries.
Though the Environmental Protection Agency’s approval of the experiment was based on studies by scientists inside and outside the government, the opponents continue to argue that not enough testing has been done. In its legal challenge to the experiment, the Foundation on Economic Trends argues that no one has tested the potential effect of the bacteria on hospital patients, cloud formations and global weather patterns, among other things.
Oh, come on. There is no end to the list of imaginable hazards, and no way to exhaust that list. In all the genetic experiments to date there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that the Doomsday scenarios have a chance of coming true. It was wise to stop and think about these problems at the outset, but it is equally wise to conclude now that the fears were ill founded and that the work should proceed.
Nothing will be gained by continued opposition to these experiments. Much will be lost if society cannot reap the benefits that genetic engineering can provide.
