Ross Kaminsky - rossputin.com
12.11.08
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.
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.
Your Comment
Wesley J. Smith - Discovery Institute
15.11.08
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...
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.
www.wesleyjsmith.com