| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Book Review |
2Technology Development Group, Edengrove, Dairsie, Fife KY15 4RP, UK 3Division of Environmental and Evolutionary Biology, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Fife KY16 9TH, UK
The introduction of recombinant DNA technology has had a profound impact on all areas of biology. Indeed, plant biotechnology has emerged as an important area of specialization, with a broad array of tools for genetic analysis and manipulation. Such tools have opened new horizons in such scientific areas as plant genomics, population genetics, systematics, and gene expression and development, as well as applied areas such as crop improvement, crop development, production of novel foods, conservation, and land reclamation. Such developments, particularly in the applied areas, have greatly enhanced the visibility of plant biology as regional, national, and international policies are determined. As a consequence, plant biologists have a renewed responsibility to be aware of the societal implications of their field. Many readers of this journal will find themselves drawn into lively discussions of the agricultural applications of biotechnology, in particular.
In the 1970s and 1980s, deliberate release of organisms genetically modified (GM) using the tools of biotechnology was treated with great caution, but as our experience base and scientific regulatory infrastructure grew, a more matter-of-fact approach seemed to be emerging. Now, seemingly out of the blue, a crisis in confidence is developing in Europe, which has the potential to limit the agricultural implementation of GM, at least in the near term. What is the basis for this crisis? Can it be addressed by improved communication and better public understanding of underlying scientific issues? The author of Pandora's Picnic Basket, Alan McHughen, thinks that it can.
McHughen's contribution is an intelligent, well-written book, developed in a sound, rational, deliberate and, dare one say it, scientific, way. McHughen covers a broad range of interlocking topics, from the science of gene transfer and plant breeding through risk assessment to the complexities of food marketing and labelling. Some audiences will doubtless seek it out and will certainly benefit. However, a continuing frustration throughout the book is that its important messages will be lost to all but a few dedicated readers, because most readers uncertain about biotechnology would be unlikely to persevere through the dense, formidably comprehensive text.
Those who are likely to both read and benefit from the well-grounded, thorough coverage include: scientists, biologists in particular, who feel they should have an informed view; Ph.D. students coming to grips with the social context of the science they are learning, or the natural science base of the social issues they are studying; policymakers (including members of advisory committees of various sorts); regulators; and administrators of universities or companies involved in biotechnology. Those who would also benefit, but are unlikely to read the book, include: strongly interested members of the public, farmers, members of the media, and activists.
The book is a cornucopia (to borrow the food motif of its subtitles) of facts, explanations, useful citations of track records, and comparisons across technologies (e.g., various "conventional" plant breeding technologies including mutation vs. biotechnology, or traditionally produced, new foods vs foods derived in part through biotechnology). Those who read it will become better informed debaters, writers, speakers, and teachers.
Yet, in the very act of defining his purpose, McHughen misses the opportunity to attempt a rare integration of different approaches, staying close to home with science. "The final decision on accepting or rejecting GM technology demands consideration of social, ethical, political, and other aspects. But because so much of the debate is founded on science and scientific interpretation, this book concentrates on the science issues. With the scientific and factual basis, you may then incorporate the other aspects to build your position, confident in a stable and solid foundation" (10). With an almost touching faith in the power of rational thought, he says "To debate ethical and other components requires factual, often scientific, background" (143). As he concludes his book, he exhorts the reader, "Devoid of fear and thinking clearly, identify the source of concern and evaluate rational tenability" (263). Yet, a fundamental premise of the growing field of risk communication is that perception of risk by individual human beings does not rest solely (if at all!) on scientific facts, but rather on bases that may be primarily emotional.
To dismiss these considerations as irrational, which McHughen does not do, or to drop them from a debate, as McHughen effectively does, is to miss the boat. Certainly, many of us are most comfortable with science, facts, a rationally argued case—and there is nothing wrong with that, except that it isn't enough. Particularly in the UK, and Europe, feelings about biotechnology run strong. Equipping a reader with factual nuggets about the amount of arsenic ingested in normal daily life (to put the "risk" of biotech foods in perspective) will only go so far. Instead of stretching our view of how a scientist can engage in multifaceted discussions, McHughen reaffirms (however articulately) the usual model. The book would have benefited from a "guest" chapter providing insights into modes of discussion that will genuinely engage a wide variety of individuals in the public sphere.
Perhaps this avoidance of "soft" facets to the argument leads to at least two notable omissions. One is the almost complete avoidance of the paradox in which the same members of the public who NEVER complain if the medicine saving their lives or enhancing their quality of life is a product of biotech still fear foods derived by the same processes. Surely this is worth more attention than he gives it if responses to biotech are to be understood.
A dimension that is underplayed, if not omitted, in what is an unusually insightful contrast of attitudes in UK/United States/Canada is that of the difference in "openness" throughout biotech's history. The "biotechnology center" phenomenon begun in the United States (and then also developed in Canada) is without a real parallel in the UK—missions of these centers have since the early 1980s included outreach to citizens, working with teachers, and involving companies and universities in open days and other opportunities for the public to get to know biotechnology in a quite matter-of-fact way. It is possible that the difference in U.S. attitudes is not due to a materialistic complacency, as is often claimed, but rather at least in part to deliberate efforts anchored in a social context predicated on transparency. Just a few examples exist in first-hand experiences of one of us co-founding the first statewide biotechnology center and writing communication with citizens into its mandate; co-organizing national conferences for novice state-level regulators of agricultural and environmental biotechnology; writing chapters on environmental risk and regulation for the U.S. Congress; co-establishing a citizen's advisory group for an environmental release center; and co-chairing a biotech association's education committee disseminating evenhanded information to teachers for open discussion with students!) Surely, some lessons have been learned from numerous efforts of this sort that, with modification, could be extrapolated to the fostering of open debate even now.
One very useful tool provided by McHughen for those discussing GM foods is to ask first what specifically about "GM foods" bothers an individual. Although he unfortunately limits this tool by excluding social, ethical, or emotional concerns, he does suggest safety of the environment and safety of human or animal food as the two major categories of scientific issues under which specific worries could fall. If someone were worried about food safety, perhaps allergenicity—certain facts about regulatory scrutiny of foods and the science of genetic modification could be relevant. (This area is one in which the author does in fact blend in a "human, emotional" side, discussing the urgency with which his daughter's allergy to nuts must be handled.) On the other hand, if someone were concerned about environmental effects, that person might actually be questioning something quite different, perhaps intensification of agriculture generally. Commendably, the author states firmly that the overall goal of his book, or discussion generally, is for individuals to make their own informed choices as to eating GM foods.
Evenhanded though he is, McHughen of course has his own view, and that is that GM foods should be judged as specific products rather than regulated simply by their process of derivation, which he clearly sees as equal to or better than conventional technologies in terms of overall safety. (For example, quite tellingly, he cites 2471 cases, including 250 deaths, caused by E coli strain O157:H7 in 1996, with organic food implicated in one-third of the cases, even though organic food makes up only 1% of food consumed in the United States.)
It is strangely satisfying for Americans now living in the biotech-hostile UK, where even scientific bodies falsely "concede" that there is no evidence of safety, to have McHughen provide evidence of an extensive track record of both environmental releases and ingestion of GM-derived food. "There have been no environmental disasters of health issues attributed to GM or GMOs, despite their being grown on millions of acres and consumed by millions of humans over several years" (206). Even though it is also important to acknowledge the validity of emotional responses, it is nice to see the facts of the case laid out for all to see.
McHughen's conclusions, and most compelling points, quite frustratingly, are often buried—perhaps the third to the last paragraph in a very long chapter, with no overt emphasis to help the skimming reader. In the midst of a strong but undeniably didactic chapter about different plant breeding methodologies, for example, fundamentally important points such as the following (found on two consecutive pages, 70 and 71, respectively) are tucked into the rather detailed prose: "Additional regulation of conventional breeding methods is unlikely to provide greater security and protection against food scares, because food hazards are almost invariably due to adulteration or contamination of foods, not to the actual cultivar or process by which they were developed." "My point is that if mutation breeding is acceptable and safe with the current level of regulatory scrutiny, then there is no logical basis to categorically ‘draw the line’ between rDNA and mutation breeding." An Executive Summary lifting and capturing in one place key points like these would be very powerful!
With all the capabilities of even desktop publishing, it seems a shame that virtually no graphics or even italicizing are employed; there is no structure to highlight concluding or otherwise important points.
Unfortunately, the only vivid, easily accessible "sound bites" are the scaremongering contents of the book's cover. Particularly given the author's own stance, there is something quite offensive about the title, book jacket, and marketing strategy. Anyone glancing at the book or only reading the cover's enticements is most likely to walk away convinced that all GM foods are highly dangerous. The book jacket opens by asking "Did you know that there are fish genes in some tomatoes?"—reiterating the urban legend that the author actually debunks in the text as "GM's first red herring." By adopting the language of biotech opponents, the marketing of the book thus reinforces the sensationalism of which the author accuses most media presentations. How can this be justified, particularly because those who want most to have their negative views validated, may be most unlikely to go on to actually read the far more balanced text? Someone who named the GM variety of linseed he developed "Triffid" should perhaps be more careful about conjuring up negative science fiction images!
The writing in the book itself is clear and makes useful distinctions among concerns or phenomena that are often erroneously clumped together. This is a very helpful role of the book. Chapter titles are fun, covering the feast from Chapter 1, "Hors-d'oeuvres and entrees" to Chapter 15, "Just desserts." The questions opening each chapter are clever and thought-provoking, striking a more accessible note than the ensuing text. There are flashes of enjoyable wit throughout the book, including a perfectly timed reference to "half baked" potato results following an even-handed discussion of why the infamous experiment purporting to show that GM potatoes are harmful, was actually (according to the Royal Society analysis) "flawed in many aspects of design, execution and analysis" such "that no conclusions should be drawn from it" (142).
McHughen doesn't evade the complex issues. In discussing the fraught issue of labelling, he makes clear the extra costs that would arise, the logistical challenges, and the cost that will be passed on to the consumer. Just one of the thought-provoking scenarios he raises is that of the potential for indiscriminate mandatory labelling for all GM foods (or foods the provenance of which might possibly include some GM) actually raising costs of "bottom of the market" products for those with least discretionary income. He is not afraid to take a stand contrary to the usual "received wisdom" on labelling: "A GM product lacking a label is less an assault on informed choice than is denial of customer access to a product that has passed appropriate scientific review for health and environmental safety. Banning a product evaluated and judged safe by competent authorities denies informed choice to consumers" (228).
Some tidbits arise for the more technically minded to savor: if a crop plant is found to contain a gene homologous with a pig gene, should it be labelled (or shunned) as thoroughly as a GM plant containing a pig gene? If a plant breeder "breeds out" the foreign DNA of a parent in a cultivar development program, should the new cultivar still be labelled as GM?
A staunch advocate of examining safety of particular food products, whatever their process of derivation, McHughen towards the end of the book waves a rallying flag for the creation of a public database that will, in a standardized way, capture information for all commercial food products. This is an intriguing alternative to mass labelling of all foods that might contain some GM derived component, as it would be able to expand upon features relevant to an individual consumer's concerns. It is not clear just who would pull together scattered existing databases and align their contents to make comparisons easy. Concerns about uneven access to such information also arise, but the author does a service by offering a potentially practicable strategy that cuts across the "Label/Don't Label" divide.
In short, would we recommend this book? Yes. It is rich in detail and accurate across a wide span of dimensions; it outlines strong arguments, brings to mind subtleties that might otherwise go unremarked, and offers some practical suggestions. It will indeed provide the underpinnings for many a good debate. Yet, it is not enough. A "dietary supplement" of similar advice as to how to deal with social, ethical, or emotional issues would bring out the full nutritive value of the author's contribution. The lingering hint of disappointment left by the book is more evocative of Cassandra than Pandora—however accurate and valuable the prophesies and offerings of this book, its curse may be that many who could benefit from reading it will not pay heed.
Submitted by Spencer C. H. Barrett, Book Review Editor
 |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
