Revolutionary genetic technology requires a cautious approach

Leading-edge of genetics
Precautionary Principle
David T. Suzuki Ph.D

I am a geneticist by training. At one time in my career, I had one of the largest research grants and genetics labs in Canada. The time I spent in lab was one of the happiest periods of my life and I am proud of the contribution we made to science. My introductory book is still the most widely used genetics text in the world. Today, while I am no longer active as a researcher I follow genetics, including the debate over genetically modified food, with real interest and admiration.

Advances in genetic insights and technological manipulative abilities have been breathtaking. I see undergraduate students performing lab exercises I never dreamt would be possible in my lifetime, and questions I never thought we'd be able to test are being answered. The ideas and experiments performed are ingenious and elegant and the results are of tremendous significance. So the excitement surrounding genetics is understandable, but that's all the more reason to reflect deeply before rushing to apply it.

When I graduated as a geneticist in 1961, I was excited and full of enthusiasm and determined to make a mark. Back then we knew about DNA, genes, chromosomes and genetic regulation. But today when I tell students what our hot ideas were in '61, they choke with laughter. Viewed in 1999, ideas from 1961 seem hilarious. But when those students become professors years from now and tell their students what was hot in 1999, those students will be just as amused. At the cutting edge of scientific research, most of our ideas are far from the mark-wrong, in need of revision or irrelevant. That's not a derogation of science, it's the way science advances. We take a set of observations or data, set up a hypothesis that makes sense of them and then we test the hypothesis. The new insights and techniques we gain from this process are interpreted tentatively and liable to change, so any rush to apply them strikes me as downright dangerous.

No group of experts should be more aware of the hazards of unwarranted claims than geneticists. After all, it was the exuberance of geneticists early in this century that led to the creation of a discipline called eugenics which aimed to improve the quality of humanity's genes. These scientists were every bit as clever, competent and well-meaning as today's genetic engineers, they just got carried away with their discoveries. Outlandish claims were made by eminent geneticists about the hereditary nature of traits such as drunkenness, nomadism, and criminality, as well as those judged "inferior" or "superior". Those claims provided scientific respectability to legislation in the US prohibiting inter-racial marriage and immigration from countries judged inferior and allowed sterilization of inmates of mental institutions on genetic grounds. In Nazi Germany, Josef Mengele was a geneticist who held peer-reviewed research grants for his work at Auschwitz. The grand claims of geneticists led to Race Purification Laws and the Holocaust.

Today, the leading-edge of genetics is in the field of biotechnology. The basis of this new area is the ability to take DNA (genetic material) from one organism and insert it into a different species. This is truly revolutionary. Human beings can't normally exchange genes with a carrot or a mouse, but with DNA technology scientists can make it happen.

However, history informs us that while we love technology there are always costs, and since our knowledge of how nature works is so limited, we can't anticipate how those costs will manifest themselves. We only have to reflect on DDT, nuclear power and CFCs, which were hailed as wonderful creations but whose long-term detrimental effects were only found decades after their widespread use.

Now, with a more wise and balanced perspective, we are cutting back on the use of these technologies. But with GM foods, this option may not be available. The difference with genetically modified food is that once the genie is out of the bottle, it will be very difficult or impossible to stuff it back. If we stop using DDT and CFCs, nature may be able to undo most of the damage-even nuclear waste decays over time. But GM plants are living organisms. Once these new life forms have become established in our surroundings, they can replicate, change, and spread, so there will be no turning back. Many ecologists are concerned about what this means to the balance of life on Earth that has evolved over millions of years through the natural reproduction of species.

Biotechnologists trumpet the revolutionary nature of genetic manipulation (the very reason why it should be applied with extreme caution). Then they turn around and tell us DNA is DNA and there's nothing revolutionary or hazardous about crossing species boundaries. But they can't have it both ways. It can't be revolutionary for all the wonderful things that are possible but normal when concerns are expressed. Genomes are selected in the entirety of their expression. In ways we barely comprehend, the genes within a species are interconnected and interact as an integrated whole. When a gene from an unrelated species is introduced, the context within which it finds itself is completely changed. If a taiko drum is plunked into the middle of a symphony orchestra and plays along, it is highly probable the resultant music will be pretty discordant. Yet based on studies of gene behaviour derived from studies within a species, biotechnologists assume that those rules will also apply to genes transferred between species. This is totally unwarranted.

As we learned from experience with DDT, nuclear power and CFCs, we only discover the costs of new technologies after they are extensively used. We should apply the Precautionary Principle with any new technology, asking whether it is needed and then demanding proof that it is not harmful. Nowhere is this more important than in biotechnology because it enables us to tamper with the very blueprint of life.

We will only be able to say definitively that transgenic foods are or are not harmful to our health or the environment after they have been consumed by thousands of people over long periods, an have been out in open fields for many years. With the widespread growth of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in fields and for sale as food, we have become part of a massive experiment. Only here, instead of admitting the tests will inform us on the safety or danger of such foods, we are carrying out the tests having already decided the food is safe.

I would have preferred far more experimentation under controlled lab conditions before their release into the open, but it's too late. Since GMOs are now in our food supply, we have become experimental subjects without any choice. (Europeans say if they want to know whether GMOs are hazardous or not, they should just study North Americans.) We have learned from painful experience that anyone entering an experiment should give informed consent. That means at the very least, food should be labelled if it contains GMOs so we as individuals can make that choice.

David T. Suzuki Ph.D. the Chair of the David Suzuki Foundation, is an award-winning scientist, environmentalist and broadcaster. An internationally respected geneticist, David has been a full time professor at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver since 1969. The author of more than 30 books, David Suzuki is recognized as a world leader in sustainable ecology.

Contact the David Suzuki Foundation at 604-732-4228, Fax 604-732-0752,

Email: solutions@davidsuzuki.org - Website: www.davidsuzuki.org/

By: David Suzuki Ph.D.

© Copyright 2001. Galt Western Personnel Ltd. Unless otherwise specified, you may reprint this article, quote from it, use it in research or projects, duplicate it or distribute it. Credit of authorship and source MUST be given to galtglobalreview.com. Ownership of Copyright remains with Galt Western Personnel Ltd.

Return to Top

Business News / Business Roundup - Australia / Canada / Europe / United States / Careers / Classified / Information Technology / New Technology / Education News / World Facts / Book Reviews / Archives/Research