What Is Wrong with Nature?

• Author: Steinbrecher, Ricarda
• Position: Problems with genetic engineering

If we are to believe the advertisements and the bold promises of the biotech industry, world hunger will soon be a problem of the past. There will be no further threat to the environment, wildlife or biodiversity through modern agriculture, which depends so heavily on chemicals.

Genetic engineering is the way forward. The few mishaps here and there will soon be sorted out. The unpredictability of Nature will be brought under control. Through genetic engineering, food will be better and safer than it ever has been. Plants are already grown that are made to be tolerant to herbicides (weed-killers) or resistant to insects and other pests. Other plants are being developed for resistance to fungal attack or to viruses.

And isn't it a great advance to have fruits that will not rot nor bruise nor ripen before told to do so; to produce vaccines in bananas and high concentrations of Vitamin A in rice and in rape seed? We can even use crop plants as factories by manipulating their genes so that they produce inedible chemicals and proteins and fibers for industrial purposes. Giant salmon are now grown so fast you can almost watch. Over-sized bulls produce more lean meat than anyone could have dreamed of. What is wrong with envisioning future plants and animals as tailor-made commodities? It seems that the only constraints on the possibilities of biotechnology are the boundaries of our imagination.

Even if all of these dreams were actually achievable and safe, society would have to question the ethics, the political implications, the monopolies created, the patenting of life, the socioeconomic effects, the costs to the environment, the impact on the Third World and on biodiversity. Or we could simply ask, "What is wrong with food and nature, as we know it?" The question we must surely ask be, are these technologies really safe? What are the dangers of genetic engineering itself? What are the associated hazards and risks? Do genetic scientists actually know what they are doing?

Hemophilia is the result of a failure of the gene for the bloodclotting protein (Factor VIII) to work properly. The obvious solution is to replace the defective gene with an intact one. But our skills in genetic engineering do not allow such a precise "cut and paste job" among tens of thousands of genes. The best we can do at present is to add a functional gene without removing the bad one. This creates new problems. Where to place the new gene? On which chromosome? At which location? Next to which other gene? Will the inserted gene interfere with the function or activity of another nearby gene? Will it perform as it is supposed to, no matter where it is placed? Is there actually such a thing as an independent gene? Or are genes and other DNA sequences highly interactive and interdependent? And how can we find out? We do not as yet have the skills to place the gene exactly next to gene A or B or C. All we can do is try to get the gene integrated just somewhere along the chromosomes and hope it will not end u p in the middle of another gene or near any regulatory sequences and cause havoc or constant background irritation. The risks involved for the individual are often high and the benefits more a suggestion than a reality.

What is...