I must take issue with Chris Geiger's statement [4 April] that an advanced ("extreme") level of specialized knowledge is a requirement for understanding the risks of a new technology ['The extreme level of specialized knowledge required to comprehend the risks and possiblities of a particular technology leads us to stake our opinions on incomplete information'..Moderator]. You don't have to be a chicken to judge the quality of an egg. Moreover, in a democracy there can be no deference to experts in public policy making and ethics. These belong to the realm of democratic decision making, whether scientists like it or not. The public has a right to demand clear demonstration of benefit, need and benignity. Do scientists have a problem with that? If they can't stand the heat,they should get out of the kitchen.
You also have to be an honest scientist in order to acknowledge the uncertainties and potential risks of a largely untested technology. One Monsanto-funded study does not merit a finding of safety for biotechnology. Yet scientists decry Arpad Pusztai's rat/potato study as being only one study. There can be no double standard here.
Nor do short-term crop plantings, funded or carried out by pro-biotech interests, carry weight, especially when those that have adverse findings are ignored or downplayed.
Some comments on this Conference have deplored what they perceive as peripheral or unrelated discussions. I wish to take issue with this belief. Why? Because while there is a body of literature - based mostly on speculation or modelling and less on empirical evidence - that is mainly hypothetical at this point, there is an even larger body of "unknowns", of unanswered questions. Such information voids are no more speculative than the beliefs of scientists about the potential benefits of biotechnology. Scientists do not have a monopoly on either knowledge or comprehension of the lack of knowledge. If anything, biotech scientists should be taking their cue from the sceptics and pursuing the concerns of non-scientists.
Science involves more than just dredging up evidence to support an a priori hypothesis. It also requires an impartiality that recognizes shortcomings and mistakes, and which actively SEEKS ways of proving itself wrong. This is what peer review is about: not cheerleading for one's profession but putting it to the acid test of deliberately seeking information to prove one's hypothesis wrong. Konrad Lorenz once said that the first thing he did upon rising in the morning was to discard a pet hypothesis.
I initially posted my concerns in a memo questioning the background document for this forum, but the forum manager refused to post it as being irrelevant [A clarification: the message was not posted because it was not of direct relevance to the theme of Conference 1. This aspect of "relevance" was also emphasised at the end of section 4 of the Background Document to the conference...Moderator]. The discussion has only proven him wrong and me right. If the FAO wanted a forum that unquestioningly accepted the need for and inevitability of biotechnology in agriculture, they should have invited "experts" only, who agreed with their proposition that only the technical details of biotechnology are worthy of discussion.
Comments from sceptical scientists in this forum clearly demonstrate that the science is inseparable from politics, economics and social policy.
The doubts of non-scientists are specifically based on the forementioned unknowns. Surely the FAO is not saying that all possible questions about biotech have been answered, that the social, ethical and economic implications of applying biotech are not relevant, and that even if they are, only scientists can address them. Surely they have not appointed scientists to be policy makers in non-scientific areas? Or have they?
Lorna Salzman
Box 775
East Quogue, NY 11942
718-522-0253; 516-653-3387
fax: 718-522-0253 (call first)
lsalzman@aba.org
The question of appropriateness should consider the following elements
- The factors determining or influencing the appropriateness of the different biotechnologies e.g. their environmental impact; their impact on human health; the status with respect to intellectual property rights; the status with respect to biosafety regulations and controls; the degree of access to the biotechnologies; the level of capacity-building or resources required to use them; their financial cost; their impact on food production and food security;
- The relative costs (financial, social, political or otherwise) of the biotechnologies versus the relative benefits (productivity, food security or otherwise);
- Whether they are more (or less) appropriate than existing conventional methods in the crop sector for food production and agriculture, given the realities of life in developing countries;
- Whether some of the biotechnologies are more (or less) appropriate than others;
- Whether some biotechnologies are more (or less) suited to certain regions in the developing world than others.4. Certain Factors that Should Be Considered in the Discussion:
The key question in this e-mail conference is how appropriate each of the different biotechnologies, mentioned previously in this document, may be for the crop sector in developing countries and regions.
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org For further information on the Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]