Guest Speaker: Miroslav Radman
Professor Miroslav Radman is an international authority in the revolutionary and fast-changing field of evolutionary biotechnology. Born in Split, Croatia, he holds degrees from the Universities of Zagreb and Brussels and has held teaching and research posts at Harvard University and the University of Paris. He i... Profile
Discussion - November 2008
Biotechnology has been hailed as the wonder industry of the 21st Century, but are we capable of controlling it?
10 Comments from our contributors
Loading ...
Twitter
RSS
LinkedIn
Youtube
Flickr
Twitter
LinkedIn
Youtube
Flickr
RSS
Programme Officer
Convention on Biological Diversity
said: On 01/11/2008
The last two decades have witnessed rapid advances in modern biotechnology particularly in the sectors of agriculture, healthcare and industrial development. Some biotechnology applications promise to make a significant contribution to improved human wellbeing and sustainable development. For example, the use of biotechnology techniques to produce crops and animals with characteristics, such as pest and disease tolerance, improved nutrient content and rapid growth have the potential to increase agricultural productivity and enhance food security. Biotechnology techniques are also being used in the screening and characterization of genetic resources and bioprospecting for pharmaceuticals and other industrial bioproducts. Furthermore, biotechnology has the potential to contribute to the protection of the environment, for example through bioremediation. In this regard, biotechnology could be considered a potential wonder of the 21st Century.
At the same time, however, the advancement of biotechnology has generated a host of environmental, health, ethical and socio-economic concerns. For example, concerns have been raised regarding the potential adverse effects of biotechnology products, such as living modified organisms (LMOs), on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and the resulting socio-economic impacts on indigenous and local communities. One of the worst fears is the possibility of unexpected genetic contamination from LMOs resulting in biodiversity loss and/or permanent changes in ecosystem processes, which might be difficult to control or reverse.
A number of international processes, such as the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro and agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and its Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB), have recognised the potential role of biotechnology in generating benefits for humankind and the environment but have also acknowledged its potential risks. The CPB, for example, states that “… modern biotechnology has great potential for human well-being if developed and used with adequate safety measures for the environment and human health.” The CBD also highlights the potential contribution of technology, including biotechnology, to the attainment of its objectives and encourages its Parties to provide for the effective participation in biotechnological research and promote fair and equitable access to the results and benefits arising from such research. At the same time, it also provided for the negotiation of the Protocol to ensure the safe transfer, handling and use of LMOs resulting from biotechnology.
The challenge with biotechnology, therefore, lies in our ability to use it in an environmentally-friendly and socially responsible manner so as to derive maximum benefits from it while at the same time preventing or minimizing its potential risks to the environment and human health. In this regard, the question for this month is very crucial. The answer to the question, however, varies depending on the location and the type of biotechnology application. It can be argued that, yes, many developed countries currently have capacity to control the technology. They have adequate regulatory systems and scientific and technical expertise in place; they have undertaken considerable research and have developed sound risk assessment and monitoring systems. In addition, they have mechanisms for public participation and public interest groups actively play the watch dog role. However, most developing countries currently lack such capability to control the technology.
If biotechnology is to become a truly global wonder technology, capable of meeting the needs of today without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, international cooperation is imperative to enable all countries to, among other things: (i) build the necessary technical and institutional capacities; (ii) develop and implement transparent, adaptive and harmonised regulatory frameworks; (iii) assess the safety and efficacy of the various biotechnology products and applications on a case-by-case basis; (iv) effectively monitor and evaluate biotechnology applications; and (v) share information in a timely manner. The Convention on Biological Diversity and its Cartagena Protocol provide useful mechanisms to facilitate such cooperation.
Director of Fashion
Heriot-Watt University
said: On 01/11/2008
Biotechnology is a very innovative and valuable technology creating new and novel materials, drugs, fuels, processes and objects. In fashion this is leading to the development of anti microbial yarns, glow-in the dark clothes, clothing that grows with you, self coloured cotton reducing water waste and the release of dye effluent, self cleaning textiles and the list goes on.
This novelty and innovation in both the specific fashion and textile applications mentioned above, as well as much wider applications, should not however blind us to the possible side effects of Biotechnology. The major one being biotechnology pollution which due to its novel nature may need to be very carefully handled both in terms of production and at all stages through to final consumer obsolescence and waste/recycling.
I think that Biotechnology is out of the bottle and we are not going to want to put it back but we need to be aware and quickly respond to issues as and when they arise.
Director of the Strategic Energy Analysis Center
NREL
said: On 01/11/2008
Although there is considerable debate on the impact that first generation biofuels are having on food and feed prices, the overwhelming consensus among experts is that advanced biofuels will greatly lessen any effect on food and feed prices. By using non-food resources, advanced biofuels avoid any direct competition with food and feed supplies. The only likely impact that advanced biofuels technology will have on food and feed prices will be land use competition.
Advanced biofuels vary in terms of technical maturity as well as in ultimate volume production potential. All advanced biofuels technologies offset our petroleum consumption and at the same time reduce our carbon dioxide emissions. History has shown us that by embarking on and adhering to the broadest research portfolio, we will create the best set of technology options from which industry and the marketplace can choose. Advanced biofuels have clear environmental benefits when compared to first generation biofuels technologies and conventional petroleum fuels. For example, cellulosic ethanol is expected to improve upon the positive energy balance of today’s corn ethanol by delivering four to six times as much energy as needed for production. The degree to which a relationship exists between land use change and large-scale biofuels production has begun to be addressed extensively in the research community. The hypothesis is that direct land use changes are caused by feedstock production for biofuels in a given biofuels-producing country, while indirect land use changes occur in other countries through price signals of agricultural commodities because of the increased commodity demand induced by biofuels production.
Although these benefits, in and of themselves, are significant, sustainability needs to be addressed through comprehensive “cradle to grave” research. More understanding is needed about the overall life cycle impacts of biofuels pathways on our environment – our land, water and air. DOE has begun several activities in this area. In FY 08 DOE commissioned NREL in partnership with other leading national laboratories and universities to initiate an effort to collect and analyze data to assess the direct and indirect impacts of biofuels production. This work will be used to develop sustainability assessments of biofuels deployment scenarios such as those specified in the recently enacted Energy Independence of Security Act (EISA) of 2007 which calls for 36 billion gallons of biofuels production by 2022, of which 21 billion gallons have to be advanced biofuels.
Summary
Advanced biofuels are a significant step in the right direction to addressing tomorrow’s food, feed and fuel potential. The current successful, goal-focused effort on cellulosic ethanol is on target towards achieving the U.S. immediate objective, to displace imported oil, reduce greenhouse gases, and minimize food and feed price impacts. However, globally, we collectively need to accelerate and expand our existing advanced biofuels effort to include other conversion options and fuels, beyond ethanol, to truly achieve the benefits that advanced biofuels offer. On this path, we will need to more accurately study and monitor the potential food versus fuel controversy and set proper policies and incentives in that area to minimize conflicts, meet economical food and feed requirements and launch an important industry in a sustainable manner.
Professor of European Politics
Cardiff University
said: On 01/11/2008
The term biotechnology has two components: ‘bio’ referring to life; and ‘technology’ referring to the application of science. Biotechnology means then the application of scientific techniques to the process of life itself. From an ethical point of view, this, in itself, is not necessarily problematic. Human beings have manipulated life processes whether of plants or animals from time immemorial. Two factors, however, make the situation today vastly different from the past.
First, scientific understanding has experienced an exponential increase over the past couple of hundred years particularly with the development of biology itself as a science. This has led to a more exact and refined understanding of life processes. The application of these insights has also grown with techniques such as the genetic modification of plants and the cloning of animals.
The second, more problematic, development is that not just plant and animal life but human life also has become subject to these applications and there have been significant breakthroughs in their medical applications and in the search for cures for various diseases. Most of these developments are ethically acceptable if they are seen to enhance human well-being.
On the other hand, the more recent developments have raised ethical concerns. First, does scientific exploration and its applications have limits and, if so, who defines these limits and by which criteria? Science itself does not seem able to provide the necessary ethical criteria. One problem here is that science and technology are both driven to a large extent by big business such as pharmaceutical companies whose criteria are simply seeking a return on their investments in the form of profits. Often the quasi-miraculous cures promised by some biogenetic research are a way of persuading the public that the research should go on often without real thought going into safeguards.
This leads to a second ethical concern which is that increasingly this research involves human life itself, whether in the form of experiments on human embryos, cloning or hybridization. Unfortunately, concerns about the ethical implications of this research have taken the form of a shouting match between religious groups, particularly the Catholic Church, on the one hand, and scientists and politicians on the other.
This is unfortunate as the issue can then be presented as the old science vs. religion conflict (in itself a false dichotomy). The problem is not whether we should carry out scientific research but on whether it is ethically acceptable to experiment on human life itself or whether we should find alternative ways to research into these issues. This is an area where the precautionary principle might be applied and we should at least step back and consider the ethical consequences of the research.
Unfortunately, a coalition of big business, scientists, politicians, journalists and governments seem determined to avoid such an approach as, clearly, there are huge commercial and economic considerations which seem to override ethics as the passage of the Human Fertilization and Embryology Bill through Westminster illustrated. This shows that the UK government is one of the most determined to promote the commercial over the ethical.
Member
Agricultural Biotechnology Research Institute of Iran
said: On 04/11/2008
Biotechnology is not a new technology at all. Egyptian drawings inside the Pyramids and findings from Iranian historical places indicate how familiar were the people in the Middle East with using life forms (e.g. yeast) to produce products (such as alcoholic drinks and baking bread). This is the definition of biotechnology in its broad sense. Modern Biotechnology however, is the scientific achievement of the human being towards the end of the last century and is defined as the application of in vitro nucleic acid techniques and direct injection of DNA into cells and/or fusion of cells beyond the taxonomic family. This is in fact the Modern Biotechnology (or more specifically genetic engineering) that has raised concerns.
Being in the field of Modern Biotechnology and biosafety for almost two decades, I have not been able to convince myself that the concerns raised by the opponents of Modern Biotechnology are unique or restricted to the application of this technology. Gene flow, effects on non-target organisms, probability of occurrence of unintended effects, issues related to food safety (such as allergenicity and toxicity) and all the biosafety and ethical issues are in one way or another true for other technologies currently in use. Reported levels of genomic disturbance and related unexpected and unintended effect are far more in many of the classical breeding methods and mutation breeding by chemical mutagenesis or ionizing radiation. There are numerous reports on gene flow from traditionally bred crop plants or crops produced through mutational breeding and numerous cases of allergenicity and toxicity reported among those “natural” food crops such as eggs, tree nuts, soybean, potato, celery and cassavas. Non-target organisms are being massacred by intensive application of chemical insecticides and…
For many traditional foods, safety is not assessed and is just assumed! However, foods produced through Modern Biotechnology pass through stringent risk assessment and thorough food safety analysis prior to their full commercialization.
With the realization of the benefits delivered by Modern Biotechnology and wide acceptance of GM crops over the globe during the last decade (growing of about 120 million hectares of the GM crop plants in more than 23 countries), I see no reason why we should not be able to “control” the claimed and unproven perceived hypothetical side effects.
Marine Biotechnologist
Plymouth Marine Laboratory
said: On 06/11/2008
This is an interesting question because it depends on what you wish to control. Do we wish to control the technology? It is probably too late for that as the knowledge to genetically-manipulate biological systems in well-documented in the public domain. Do we wish to control the inadvertent spread of the products of biotechnology? I do not think it can be controlled any more or less than we have been able to control our natural environment. Over hundreds of years of selective breeding we have changed the plants and animals which surround us. Through the global movement of goods and people we have inadvertently introduced plants and animals into ecosystems, upsetting the natural cycles of predator and prey, even in the presence of controls. There will always be accidental release and the more prevalent the technology the more likely it is to happen. There has always been a concern since the earliest days that Biotechnology, or more appropriately recombinant DNA technology, will lead to environmental catastrophe. In the past 35 years this has not happened. The risks it poses are no greater than those already existing in the natural world and it merely represents a different route to achieving certain goals. A more pertinent question might relate to how we, as a society, want to benefit from the potential of biotechnology to develop a better world.
So what can biotechnology offer? From a marine perspective we can access the diversity of the oceans without disrupting it. By removing small samples and accessing the DNA present we can potentially reproduce many new and previously unknown molecules which could be developed as drugs, nutraceuticals, food additives, chemicals for industry, new materials – all whilst causing minimal damage to the marine environment. Through biotechnology it will be possible to reproduce chemicals only found in rare corals, for example, by removing a small sample for genetic analysis without damaging the whole organism. Rather like taking a blood sample in humans to run tests. We could sample from the deepest oceans and discover chemicals in organisms which we may never see. By using this approach we can help sustain and protect our environment whilst benefiting from nature’s laboratory. We will also be able to use the natural detritus of our environment – straw, seaweed – to generate the raw materials we need to make things in a sustainable manner. When used properly the potential and benefits of biotechnology far outweigh any perceived risks.
Head of the Research and Development Marine Biotechnology Program
Ifremer
said: On 06/11/2008
The world’s oceans comprise the largest part of the biosphere and contain the most ancient and diverse forms of life. Life originated in the sea and the incredible diversity of the ocean life is linked to the fact that marine organisms have been evolving for much longer than their counterparts on land and have developed a greater spectrum of adaptations. One of the most primising and exciting aspect of marine biotechnology is bioprospection: the search for new and innovative natural compounds that can be used as novel drugs, healthcare products, agrochemicals for crop protection, biopolymers.
The benefits from marine biotechnology could be diverse a) developing novel drugs for treating diseases such as cancer and neurodegenerative diseases, b) producing diagnostic devices (biosensors) for monitoring health, c) discovering new types of composite materials, biopolymers, enzymes, d) bio-energy, e) ensuring sustainable and safe aquaculture and fisheries and, g) providing news approaches to protect and manage marine environments.
But the major biodiversity in the oceans does not reside in the plants and animals but in the tremendous diversity of microbial life that can be found in marine waters, associated with plants and animals and in the deep sea environments which compose the main surface of the planet. To achieve success in marine biotechnology some obstacles to the discovery and cultures of these organisms must be overcome. There is a need to design new approaches to isolate and culture new organisms. Metagenomics through access to the huge reservoir of these uncultivated and hidden bacteria opens the door to yet untapped source of bioactive compounds.
Two third of the planet are covered by oceans more than 3,000 m deep (307 million km2) and the mean depth is approximately 3,800 m. Nevertheless the deep-sea ecosystem still remain unexplored. But with the development of new diving techniques, submarines, remote operated machines, etc,… it is now possible to collect marine samples from recent out-of-
the-way locations. Microorganisms living in such environments have developed unique adaptations that enable them to survive in dark, cold (or hot-hydrothermal vents-), highly pressurized and highly toxic environments. It is widely accepted that microorganisms well adapted to such conditions will provide a valuable resource for exploitation in novel biotechnological processes but also as models for investigating how biomolecules are stabilized when subjected to extreme conditions. Novel polysaccharides and poly-hydroxyalcanoates along with thermostable enzymes have already been isolated from microorganisms originating from such ecosystems. But the unique characteristics of deep-sea organisms make them exceptionally vulnerable to disturbance. Compared to ocean surface deep-sea life tends to be exceedingly slow-growing and late to mature. In that, careful and cautious exploitation is also essential in order not to damage and disturb this fragile ecosystem.
Associate Editor
Global Politician
said: On 12/11/2008
It is a common human self-delusion to believe that technology and its products can be controlled. The outcomes of all technologies are unpredictable and disruptive. In the complex case of biotechnology, it is far more instructive to dwell upon other questions:
1. Is it meaningful to discuss biotechnology separate from life, as opposed to life, or compared to life? Is it not the inevitable product of life, a determinant of life and part of its definition? Francis Bacon and, centuries later, the visionary Ernst Kapp, thought of technology as a means to conquer and master nature: an expression of the classic dichotomy between observer and observed. But there could be other ways of looking at it (consider, for instance, the seminal work of Friedrich Dessauer). Kapp was the first to talk of technology as “organ projection” (preceding McLuhan by more than a century). Freud wrote in “Civilization and its Discontents”: “Man has, as it were, become a kind of prosthetic god. When he puts on all his auxiliary organs he is truly magnificent; but those organs have not grown on to him and they still give him much trouble at times.”
2. On the whole, will biotechnology contribute to human development or arrest it?
3. Even if we accept that biotechnology is alien to life, a foreign implant and a potential menace, what frame of reference can accommodate the new convergence between life and technology (mainly medical technology and biotechnology)? What are cyborgs – life or technology? What about clones? Artificial implants? Life sustaining devices (like heart-kidney machines)? Future implants of chips in human brains? Designer babies, tailored to specifications by genetic engineering? What about ARTIFICIAL intelligence?
4. Is biotechnology IN-human or A-human? In other words, are the main, immutable and dominant attributes of biotechnology alien to humans, to the human spirit, or to the human brain? Is this possible at all? Is such non-human biotechnology likely to be developed by artificial intelligence machines in the future? Finally, is this kind of biotechnology automatically ANTI-human as well? Mumford’s classification of all technologies as either polytechnic (human-friendly) or monotechnic (human averse) springs to mind.
5. Is the impact biotechnology has on the INDIVIDUAL necessarily identical or even comparable to the impact it has on human collectives and societies? Think Internet – the answer in this case is clearly NEGATIVE.
6. Is it possible to define what is biotechnology at all?
If we adopt Monsma’s definition of technology (1986) as “the systematic treatment of an art” – is art to be treated as a variant of technology? Robert Merton’s definition is a non-definition because it is so broad it encompasses all teleological human actions: “any complex of standardized means for attaining a predetermined result”. Jacques Ellul resorted to tautology: “the totality of methods rationally arrived at and having absolute efficiency in every field of human activity” (1964). H.D. Lasswell (whose work is mainly media-related) proffered an operative definition: “the ensemble of practices by which one uses available resources to achieve certain valued ends”. It is clear how unclear and indefensible these definitions are.
7. The use of biotechnology involves choices and the exercise of free will. Does biotechnology enhance our ability to exercise free will – or does it detract from it? Is there an inherent and insolvable contradiction between biotechnology and ethical and moral percepts? Put more simply: is biotechnology inherently unethical and immoral or a-moral? If so, is it fatalistic, or deterministic, as Thurstein Veblen suggested (in “Engineers and the Price System”)? To rephrase the question; does biotechnology DETERMINE our choices and actions? Does it CONSTRAIN our possibilities and LIMIT our potentials? We are all acquainted with utopias (and dystopias) based on technological advances (just recall the millenarian fervour with which electricity, the telegraph, railways, the radio, television and the Internet were greeted). Technology seems to shape cultures, societies, ideals and expectations. It is an ACTIVE participant in social dynamics. This is the essence of Mumford’s “megamachine”, the “rigid, hierarchical social organization”. Contrast this with Dessauer’s view of technology as a kind of moral and aesthetic statement or doing, a direct way of interacting with things-in-themselves. The latter’s views place technology neatly in the Kantian framework of categorical imperatives.
8. Is biotechnology IN ITSELF neutral? Can the undeniable harm caused by biotechnology be caused, as McLuhan put it, by HUMAN mis-use and abuse: “[It] is not that there is anything good or bad about [technology] but that unconsciousness of the effect of any force is a disaster, especially a force that we have made ourselves”. If so, why blame biotechnology and exonerate ourselves? Displacing the blame is a classic psychological defence mechanism but it leads to fatal behavioural rigidities and pathological thinking.
Fellow
Heartland Institute
said: On 12/11/2008
As technological change becomes increasingly rapid, it is to be expected for the majority of people to have some fear of the unknown, particularly in the area of biotechnology; any area which is fertile ground for science fiction movies is equally fertile ground from which to frighten the public.
From genetically-modified food (the present) to next-generation bio-engineered pharmaceuticals (the short-term future) to nano-bots capable of who-knows-what (the relatively distant future, but on our minds since at least the film “Fantastic Voyage” from 1966), one can imagine biotechnology bringing food, health, and a quality of life which would have been thought ridiculous just a generation ago. One can also easily imagine a nightmare scenario of something going very wrong: a rogue virus, an unstoppable army of nano-creatures.
But despite the headlines and fund-raising ability which cries of panic can bring, biotechnology is far more likely to bring great benefit than great damage. To the extent that biotech needs to be controlled, it is mostly to avoid people making bad decisions which put a self-replicating biotechnology into a place where 1) it has no natural enemies, and 2) it is likely to have negative follow-on consequences even if its initial purpose is beneficial.
For example, (and I realize this isn’t exactly biotech) the introduction of the Cane Toad into Australia in 1935 to control the Cane Beetle without regard to the fact that there would be nothing to then control the toad’s population has led to their being an estimated 200 million toads or more in Australia, damaging Australia’s biodiversity, killing pet dogs which try to eat them and squishing incessantly under the tires of people who drive in Queensland at night.
On the other hand, genetically engineered crops are one of the oldest existing biotechnologies, going back in their most basic scientific form to Gregor Mendel, and we have seen fear, particularly in Europe, of these crops despite an utter lack of evidence that the crops pose any danger. The “control” of “GM” crops and foods in Europe has likely increased Europeans’ cost of living without any benefit to their health or environment.
In my view, it is unlikely that there will be a biotechnology “accident” that releases a damaging organism into the broader environment, and I would expect any such release to be controlled without too much difficult (unless, of course, the release was intentional, such as a bio-terror attack.)
The difficulty in bringing the benefits of increasingly complicated and futuristic biotech to society will be in giving politicians and bureaucrats sufficient education in the science involved to be able to stand up to “junk science” or self-serving opposition to beneficial biotechnology. Our leaders must not accept arguments against biotech simply because they’re made in loud voices or with the threat of street protests.
Another excellent example of unjustified fear causing great harm is the trend, particularly in some of the more “liberal” parts of America, not to vaccinate children because of concern about vaccinations causing autism. One completely debunked study suggested that, whereas many studies have shown no such risk. And we all have at least a basic understanding of the risk of getting measles or whooping cough. Yet, these diseases, and even polio, are making occasional reappearances because political leaders, especially local leaders, can’t give even the most basic scientific message on what is truly a public health issue.
Once a reasonable amount of research has been done, preferably by highly qualified but essentially disinterested third parties who do not stand to gain financially from the success or failure of a technology, leadership must not accept unproven and unlikely claims that a technological introduction is too risky to be allowed. The default position should be to allow it, if on a limited scale, but with reasonable time constraints on the limits assuming no negative consequences arise.
Companies have incentive to make sure products are not harmful. Their profits depend on it. And, if lawyers are good for anything, they’re good for instilling fear of causing widespread harm to others. People and governments must not assume the worst of a new invention simply because they don’t understand it.
In the example of the Cane Toad, control of the intentional infestation by a new organism in a non-native location was not attempted until it was too late. That is unlikely to occur in this day and age where excessive caution is the rule of the day in all things scientific. Instead, I believe our risk is in excessive control of biotechnology, allowing people’s fear of the future and the unknown – especially in a modern world in which so few people are gaining an adequate education in science – to keep the world from realizing the innumerable potential benefits of a science whose future developments will make what we’ve already done look as elementary as the invention of the wheel.
Senior Fellow in Human Rights and Bioethics
Discovery Institute
said: On 15/11/2008
Biotechnology offers tremendous promise and peril. The peril arises, in my view, from a general lack of humility within the sector and a professed unwillingness among some of its leaders to accept that there are any ethical lines that must be respected other than their own. More importantly, many have discarded the belief in the intrinsic equal moral worth of all human beings. As a consequence many in the field have come to look upon nascent humans as mere natural resources that can be used instrumentally. Most of this discussion now centers on early embryos. But the emerging predominate value system within the biotech sector–which denies intrinsic human worth and advocates for establishing moral value based on capacities–would just as easily justify using living fetuses in experimentation (which was done in the USA in the late 1960s), and even people born with profound cognitive impairments, a proposal already being voiced in some of the world’s most prestigious bioethical journals.
The problem isn’t that scientists and ethicists want to improve human health and wellbeing. We all want that (just not at any price). The problem, as I see it, is an emerging utopian attitude that threatens to make something of a religion out of science and accepts a utilitarianism that could devolve into a new eugenics. So, while we are certainly capable of controlling biotechnology, alas, I do not see a sufficient willingness among the leadership of the science and biotech sectors to do so. This not only bodes poorly for the weak and vulnerable but risks unleashing a popular backlash against science for refusing to adhere to reasonable societal norms.
http://www.wesleyjsmith.com