In the early days of this website it was often hard to find substantive material on the subject of genetic engineering. Very often it seemed that on both sides, the original reason for the “debate” had been swiftly forgotten and that the fight itself was the main reason for engaging. PR companies lined up against lifestyle (and lifelong) protestors. Now, the first casualty in any war is generally accurate information. So, we believed we had a part to play in providing information.
In recent years as the public have become more aware and information sites with much better prima facie qualifications than mine have proliferated, I have not written so much, and I have redrawn my website to address simply the major concerns:Â What are the advantages and what are the potential dangers in this new area of “science”?
I use inverted commas around science to reflect the fact that given the typical commercial sources of funding, researchers have been under enormous pressure to produce quick results that will generate a profit for the funding source. The precautionary principle itself has come under prolonged assault. Monsanto has made itself a byword for this approach.
There have been some appalling lapses and a number of narrow escapes in the conduct of GE experimentation, as there have been in the associated field of stem cell research. (I am not in principle opposed to such research, just it’s premature exploitation for commercial purposes.)
For years, I have advocated removing this research from the area of commercial funding and placing it in the hands of publically funded groups so as to remove the pressure to produce fast commercial outcomes. What we need in this field, at present, is knowledge, not profit.
(The same could have been said by the families of servicemen who were unwitting observers at early nuclear bomb trials. As Barrack Obama remarked in another context, “There will be a time for taking profits and there will be a time for receiving bonuses. That time is not now.”)
However, even given my preferred research option, Murphy’s Law still applies. A recent article in the New Zealand Herald exposes not just errors but what appears to be a blase culture of neglect. Despite more than 900 submissions opposing the research, it was initally approved subject to stringent safety precuations designed to prevent the escape of genetically engineered organisms into the environment. These precautions have simply not been observed and the research has been shut down. Good!
Good that it has been shut down. Good that at least some policing measures seem to be effective. Good that the message is there for scientists to heed in future. You have a contract, not a licence. There are more parties to the contract than just the researchers.
Bad that once again we are replacing and shutting the stable door after somebody has not just left it open, but removed it altogether.
What I do not want to see in this area of research is a bunch of attitudinal teenagers in the family car going “Yeah, whatever….” as their parents urge them to use alcohol sensibly and stay away from dope. If this cutting edge area of research is to benefit humanity, we need to respect it’s risks, and we need to respect the rights of those who are exposed to its potential hazards.