|
Garma
Garam More |
Agriculture |
|
By Rodney W. Nichols Bad money, says Gresham's Law, drives good money out of circulation. Similarly, for biotechnology these days, hyperbole drives solid evidence out of public view. As a result, the enormous potential for progress in agriculture has been pushed into the shadows. I am neither a farmer nor a plant biologist. But I have been mulling over what the combatants say in the continuing, high-stakes quest for effective innovation in food production. The challenge is urgent: the world population will rise roughly 30 percent by 2020, and little new arable land is available. My conclusions are optimistic. Science and engineering are building the knowledge to feed more people more economically, and to sustain agriculture while improving the environment. Those outcomes will power global economic development. But genuine problems may emerge as biotechnology is widely applied, and I am concerned that nations may ignore proven mechanisms for managing such risks. Junk science, thinly veiled protectionist concerns and projections of distant dangers now bedevil public understanding of the options. Those developments, in turn, erode the public trust in scientific knowledge and politicize the evidence relevant to choices that must be made. Norman E. Borlaug, a pioneer of the green revolution and the winner of the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize, has noted: "Genetic modification of crops is... just another step in humankind's deepening scientific journey... We cannot turn back the clock on agriculture," he adds, "and only use methods that were developed to feed a much smaller population." Biotechnology can improve crop productivity with reliable transgenic procedures; it can engineer plants with highly specific disease resistances; and it can help fulfill nutritional goals by adding vitamins, protein and vaccines. Developing nations can employ the new technology to assure their food security. What about the risks? Bonfires of suspicion in England and the rest of Europe about genetically engineered food have not been doused, despite the careful statements of a number of unimpeachable authorities. In May 1999 the London-based Nuffield Council on Bioethics concluded: "We have not been able to find any evidence of harm." Borlaug agrees: "There has been no credible scientific evidence to suggest that eating transgenic agricultural products damages human health, or the environment." Gordon R. Conway, the president of the Rockefeller Foundation and an agricultural ecologist who is acutely aware of possible future difficulties, says: "On current evidence, we assess the potential benefits to the developing countries as greatly exceeding the likely risks." One kind of criticism leveled against agricultural biotechnology is particularly unnerving: As a powerful new technology, genetically modified crops may carry some risksay, the risk that they will accidentally give rise to superweeds. Hence - so the argument goes - no uses for the technology can be approved unless all possible future risks can be ruled out. But such a conclusion would take a precautionary principle to an absurd extreme, transforming intelligent risk management into an almost mindless and endless restraint. There is a middle ground. Wise observers such as Conway advocate a measured approach akin to the one adopted in developing new drugs: test extensively on a small scale for safety and effectiveness, and probe for unintended side effects. U.S. farmers, a traditionally cautious lot, have experimented with genetically modified seed on millions of acres of cotton, soybean and corn - and confirmed its advantages. Yet consumers in developed countries remain largely unconvinced, and environmental activists see unresolved questions. Why not let the research flourish and the technological advances unfold with evidence-based regulation? In a halting and demoralized way, that process continues. But the paths for innovators are bumpy. Research and development in biotechnology is expensive, and the industry is undergoing a shakeout. The legal framework governing biotechnology in many countries is not even in place, much less enforced. Intellectual property in the agricultural context is a culturally sensitive issue: crops are closely identified with a nation's land and biological heritage. Yet economic incentives are critical for inventors, firms and governments. For the sake of the stuff of life, is it too much to call for a pause in picketing and a renewal of reasoning? The future of agricultural biotechnology is only as bright as the depth, clarity and persuasiveness of the evidence for its benefits. This summer the New York Academy of Sciences begins an effort to help shape a prudent consensus on the issues confronting biotechnology. RODNEY W. NICHOLS, President and CEO, the New York Academy Sciences
Copyright 2000 Sciences All Rights Reserved. |
