|
Biotechnology has aroused a wasp's nest of cultural
conflict. Scanning the news on the biotech front
one sees a dizzying array of high-stakes battles
pitting nation against nation, consumers against
producers, the Third World against industrialized
powers, scientists against naturalists, and new
technologies against traditional cultures.
In the recent past we have seen growing discord
between Mexico and the United States over the
safety of genetically modified (GM) corn. DuPont
went to court over GM seeds. Trade
ministers are exchanging more ill will than they
do consumer goods. And Zambia, fearing the economic
and health effects of introducing genetically
altered corn into its food supply, recently refused
500 metric tons of GM cornmeal, even as its citizens
starved.
There are wars of words and courtroom quarrels.
The United States and the European Union have
squared-off over genetically modified crops, with
the U.S. threatening to sue the EU over its refusal
to approve the distribution and sale of new genetically
modified organisms (GMOs). Prominent opinion leaders
such as Thomas Friedman of The New York Times
have made the conflict a cultural clash, calling
Europe's biotech position "quaint," a "romantic
rebellion against America and high technology…even
though there is no scientific evidence that [GMOs]
are harmful."
Freedom of Choice and Cultural
Diversity
Regardless of who is right or wrong in any of
these disputes, the level of conflict over genetically
engineered products sends strong signals. Widespread
public concern over the safety of GMOs does not
prove that biotechnology is "bad." But
it does suggest that genetic designers, and the
biotech industry in general, have not yet optimized
their products. How optimal, after all, is a product
that people fear?
 The
biotech battles also signal that people and nations
want to be able to freely choose what they eat,
grow and produce. As with any global issue, the
people of the world are looking at biotechnology
through a variety of cultural lenses. And though
many may not share Mr. Friedman's lens, nor his
taste for GM beef, we can be pretty sure that
most people are just as strongly attached to their
own world-view.
Indeed, we all want our personal choices to be
in harmony with deep, strongly felt beliefs. If
a Muslim woman wants to celebrate her cultural
traditions, she may have a deep interest in knowing
if there is pork in the food she's eating. If
her son is to receive an organ transplant, she
will probably want to know if it came from a cloned
pig. If the people of Zambia fear GM corn, they
may prefer trading with nations that support the
renewal of local agriculture. For the world's
one billion Hindus, most of whom believe in the
transmigration of souls, mixing the genetic material
of animal species raises fundamental spiritual
questions. And many of us may wonder at what point
the introduction of human genetic material into
animal species raised for food makes our dinner
the diet of cannibals.
Whether our choices arise from religious faith
or political philosophy or personal conviction,
most of us want the freedom to choose; we want
to be able to celebrate what we eat, wear,
use and create. And we may want to give our children
the opportunity to celebrate their choices too.
Biotech, Ecology and Irreversible
Change
At this point in history we cannot yet wholeheartedly
celebrate biotechnology or the choices it is offering
the world's cultures. Certainly, new technologies
can offer great benefits to humankind and it might
be possible that GMOs will live up to their designers'
promises. Pest-resistant GMO crops, for instance,
may indeed help farmers build a bridge between
today's pesticide ridden farmlands to tomorrow's
resurgent, organic soils.
Perhaps. But we don't know. And that's precisely
the point. We do not know enough about biotechnology
to know what accidental harm it may cause or what
choices are foreclosed by its use.
We do know, however, that genetic engineering
produces irreversible change and therefore the
possibility of irreversible ecological damage.
Even the possibility of damage strongly suggests
that we need to be sure to give future generations
the option of changing course and choosing differently.
 Genetic
engineering produces irreversible change by redefining
the genetic make-up of organisms in ways that
depart radically from the traditional breeding
of hybrid roses or horses or pigs. Genetic engineering
alters traits by manipulating the genetic material
of one organism outside of cells and adding
it to the genetic material of another, building
hybrids—transgenic organisms—that defy
the laws of nature. Traditional plant breeding
does not add the genes of a maple tree to the
genes of a potato, or the genes of a mouse to
the genes of a man. As the Union of Concerned
Scientists has said, "only genetic engineering
can accomplish such transfers because only genetic
engineering transfers genes by artificial means
that disregard natural boundaries."
At that point, freedom of choice is lost. You
can still tinker and try to perfect the next generation
of GMOs but you cannot go back and fix what you
have genetically altered. Ecological equilibriums
have been disturbed and the nature of the disturbance
can only be fully known as it plays out over time.
This presents a fundamental challenge to democracy:
If new technologies create irreversible ecological
effects, future generations are denied the right
to make a different choice. As Thomas Jefferson
said, "the earth belongs to the living." In other
words, democracy is built on the ability to change
course. If our actions today rob our children
of their right to choose, we are practicing intergenerational
tyranny, an affront to democratic traditions.
Why not develop some "rules of the road"
for biotechnology? Why not give the world, and
our children, a choice?
Forecaring
If we want to honor cultural diversity and freedom
of choice we might adopt the principle of Vorsorge,
the German word for "forecaring," and begin working
together to develop international standards for
the making and marketing of biotech products.
Vorsorgeprinzip—the forecaring or
precautionary principle—suggests that in
the absence of scientific certainty we should
act to protect ecological and cultural health
against the possibility of future harm. In Germany
in the 1970s, when it was not yet scientifically
proven that acid rain was killing the nation's
forests, the government took the precautionary
measure of cutting sulfur dioxide emissions. It
proved to be a wise choice. Not only did it preserve
Germany's forests, it also allowed industry to
develop new ways to manage their processes and
develop a better understanding of material flows.
Forecaring in the realm of biotechnology would
give citizens, scientists and the biotech industry
an opportunity to deeply assess the future impacts
of genetic engineering. Such a change would "shift
the burden of proof" wrote naturalist and biotech
writer Michael Pollan in The New York Times.
"Scientific uncertainty would no longer argue
for freedom of action but for precaution and alternatives."
In that context, we might begin to develop a framework
of standards governing the use of GMOs. Only then
can we sanely discuss if and how biotechnology
can truly contribute to a safe, healthy future.
Cradle-to-Cradle Thinking &
Biotechnology
The future standards for the biotech industry
might profit from exposure to cradle-to-cradle
thinking. From the cradle-to-cradle perspective,
good design yields products that celebrate ecological
health, freedom of choice, cultural diversity
and sustaining economic growth—100 percent
positive effects. Over the past decade we have
been privileged to see cradle-to-cradle ideas
change the discourse of sustainable design and
we are hopeful that they might also contribute
to a new dialogue in the biotech industry.
A few examples: When client companies assess
the material chemistry of their products with
MBDC they are making a commitment to the future.
Choosing only safe, healthful product ingredients,
they are generating environmental health and investing
in a relationship of trust with their customers.
If scientific analysis reveals that a product
contains a material with questionable attributes,
it is phased out. This represents a celebration
of free choice. Nothing in the product mortgages
the future, and so our children still have their
options open. And because the design process is
ultimately transparent and healthful, a customer's
choice is not tinged by fear. This attention to
protecting the rights and health of future generations
is a practice of democracy and responsibility
to the future, rather than intergenerational tyranny.
The scientific perspective of the cradle-to-cradle
design process provides a foundation for celebrating
diversity and creativity. Rather than offering
one-size-fits-all solutions that ignore the differences
between places and people—the monocultural
landscape of the American lawn, the hydroelectric
dam on the salmon run, the factory built to overcome
the rules of the natural world—cradle-to-cradle
designs are informed by the recognition that all
sustainability is local.
Businesses attuned to this principle recognize
that human designs are entwined with the surrounding
natural world—they recognize local ecology as
an inspiring standard. In this context, the scientific
analysis of product ingredients is not done in
the abstract but to ensure that materials and
manufacturing processes support life, nourishing
rather than contaminating local soils, streams,
forests and human communities.
Suddenly, design begins to raise rich questions:
How can we create meaningful occupations and life-supporting
technologies? Generate more energy than we consume?
Enhance the region's economic and social health?
Accrue biological and technological wealth for
the future?
Ultimately, cradle-to-cradle design builds a
host of rich relationships that celebrate nature,
culture and technology, all within the enduring
laws of the natural world.
A New Dialouge
Applying cradle-to-cradle thinking to biotechnology
might shift the public discussion on genetic engineering,
changing the relationship between customer and
producer, easing tensions between trading nations,
and re-focusing the scientific agenda of the biotech
industry.
 If
the industry were to enter a cradle-to-cradle
dialogue on biotechnology and begin to develop
new standards, citizens could feel assured that
biotech products were being optimized with rigorous
research, forecaring, and a design process devoted
to producing positive effects for all.
Nations would not be forced to accept GMO products
because they lacked conclusive evidence of their
harmful effects to environmental and public health.
Farmers worldwide would not need to worry about
the content of their seeds, nor would customers
need to worry about the genetic make-up of their
food.
Instead, industry and the scientific community
could pursue research that addresses the scientific
uncertainties surrounding genetic engineering.
They would develop sound "rules of the road" for
all biotechnology. Celebrating cultural diversity
and freedom of choice could become part of the
biotech dialogue. Practicing intergenerational
responsibility would become the norm.
And if this should come to pass, we all might
rest assured that our options are still open,
and we could say with confidence that our work
is truly celebrating all of the children
of all species for all time.
discuss
this feature in the online eco-effective discussion
group
|
|
