Address to the Academy of Sciences
Paris, France, 12 October 1998
Mr President of the Academy of Sciences,
Mr Vice-President,
Distinguished Permanent Secretaries,
Honourable Members and Correspondents,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I. Introduction
Towards the close of this second millennium, which has
witnessed exponential population growth, scientific
advances have proved Malthusian theories to be wrong and
opened up vast possibilities for feeding the world.
Yet, there are still more than 800 million people,
including 200 million children, who can only appease
their hunger in the restless sleep of the poor, as in the
times of the Pharaohs when Amon Râ concluded his
daily course in the world of darkness.
What more appropriate setting than this Academy of
Sciences, fixed permanently in our memory by Louis
Pasteur and his work on the silkworm, wine and
vaccinations, to appeal through that most creative of
forces, speech, for an end to "Chaos"!
What more fitting assembly than the distinguished
members of this highly respected institution, which was
established as a pillar of knowledge, to hear,
understand, answer and - may I venture to hope - consider
these reflections on scientific ethics and the food
problem.
For this is first and foremost a question of ethics,
as centuries of scientific progress have still not
enabled us to meet the most basic of human rights: the
right to food.
But if we qualify "ethics", understood as a branch of
philosophy dealing with good and evil, moral standards
and value judgements1, with the term
"scientific", the meaning equates more with the
theoretical study of the principles that guide human
action in situations where choice is possible.
What then are the choices of scientists who go beyond
a Platonist refusal of a moral evaluation of cognitive
activity?2
What principles should guide their action with regard
to plant and animal experimentation, as well as in
respect of the real or possible consequences of the
methods used to achieve the necessary increase in food
productivity?
With regard to these questions, in what way does the
food problem present itself? In what terms and
theoretical form is the problem posed and what approach
would put it in perspective?3
The World Food Summit, which was attended by Heads of
State and Government in Rome in November 1996, set the
objective of halving the number of undernourished people
by 2015 at the latest.
How are we to increase food production to feed the
world's population of 5.7 billion which is expected to
grow to 9 billion in 2030?
Furthermore, how can we do this in a sustainable
manner, when production-enhancing techniques are
accompanied by the problems of pollution, toxicity,
infestation, contamination and erosion?
And, above all, how are we to overcome the limitations
imposed by the availability of fresh water?
Finally, how are we to find alternatives to raising
output by extending crop area, given the encroachment on
fragile ecosystems and the diversion of agricultural land
for industry and urbanization?
Scientists are at the core or, as the "cosmomystic"
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin would say, at the Omega
point4 of this nebulous spatio-temporal
dilemma which will be one of the greatest challenges
facing our planet in the next millennium.
II. Food requirements
Food security is defined in terms of quantity and
quality. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations considers that food security "exists when
all people, at all times, have physical and economic
access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet
their dietary needs and food preferences for an active
and healthy life".
Food requirements can be expressed by monetary demand
or the satisfying of physiological needs in dietary
energy terms.
For nutritionists, the daily ration needed to ensure
the normal metabolism of an average group of people is
determined by three categories of energy consumption:
basal metabolism at complete rest and without food intake
for 24 hours; thermal reaction to food intake for
digestion, assimilation and storage; consumption by
physical activity. The average adult requirement is
estimated at 2 495 kilocalories5 per
day.
As regards food quality, rather than standards there
are recommendations determined by availability, customs,
beliefs and preferences that allow for a varied selection
of products that must be fresh and free from pathogenic
bacteria, mould or parasitic contamination.
III. Progress in food production and future
prospects
Scientists are therefore engaged in an activity that
is circumscribed solely by the limits of human
intelligence and ingenuity, and are driven by curiosity
and the perpetual desire to understand the world and its
role in the universe. In seeking, above all, to explain
the wherefore of things and develop new ideas and
research orientations, they have succeeded in giving us
knowledge, making us increasingly the "masters and owners
of nature"6 which can either be enhanced or
endangered through applied technology.
It is this technology that has so changed agricultural
activity, the source of human nutrition.
A) Plant production
The development of animal-drawn cultivation and the
introduction of farm motorization at the beginning of the
century helped extend cropland, doubling unit area and
productivity per worker.
Yet, population growth would lead the neo-Malthusian
environmental scientist Paul Ehrlich, author of The
population bomb, to claim in 1967 that within ten years
Japan would experience extreme food problems and hoards
of starving Chinese would invade Russia.7 He
failed, however, to reckon with the green revolution that
would take cereal production a quantum leap forward.
Thus, between 1961 and 1997, average world production
and yield increased:
- for wheat from 294 million to 609 million tonnes and
from 1.3 to 2.7 tonnes per hectare;
- for rice from 277 million to 571 million tonnes and
from 2.2 to 3.8 tonnes per hectare;
- for maize from 273 million to 589 million tonnes and
from 2.4 to 4.1 tonnes per hectare.
The increase in productivity is even more impressive
if we consider some of the world's leading countries.
Thus, from 1961 to 1997, wheat yield rose from 0.5 to
4 tonnes per hectare in China; irrigated maize yield from
2.4 to 7.5 tonnes per hectare in Egypt; rice from 1.7 to
4.4 tonnes per hectare in Indonesia; and soybean from 0.9
to 2.3 tonnes per hectare in Argentina.8
Progress, particularly in irrigated cropping, stemmed
mainly from the work of plant breeders, who first applied
Mendel's genetic laws then the methods of biotechnology.
They developed varieties that can use water and
fertilizer more effectively and that are particularly
suited to crop protection and management techniques.
Plant breeding was initially conducted from the
observation of phenotype, then the modalities of transfer
to progeny, in order to identify genotype.
The method most commonly used to achieve quality
progeny is single or double hybridization. A hybrid is
backcrossed with a parent to produce a new variety of the
same genotype with the new characteristic in homozygote
state. Induced mutation is sometimes used, notably
irradiation or haploidization, to obtain true homozygotic
plants. Reproduction of hybrids from the crossing of
different genotypes, therefore heterozygotes, has to be
effected from the parental lines.9
Biotechnology has gradually made it possible to act
directly at cell, nucleus, chromosome and, finally, gene
level using enzymes, vectors (plasmids and
bacteriophages), host bacteria and synthesized DNA
coupled with gene identification, characterization,
cloning and modification techniques.
The 1970s saw an improvement in gene transfer
technology with the realization of gene construction and
direct micro-injection into the cell or insertion by
plasmid intermediary with a biological vector or by a
mechanical process. In the case of a totipotent cell, a
genetically modified organism (GMO) is obtained by
regenerating a complete organism, usually through
in vitro culture.10
Biotechnology is an auxiliary to cross-breeding
technology, not a replacement. It helps accelerate the
breeding process. For example, it now takes two to three
years to develop a new plant variety through
biotechnological modification compared with six to twelve
years using the traditional method.11
Molecular biology geneticists are now able to identify
the genes that code for certain characteristics and
substances, and can draw up the genetic maps. They are
thus able to develop resistance to nematodes, fungi,
bacteria and viruses, which they have successfully
transferred to related species. They can also identify
the proteins of resistance genes and sequential models as
well as their structure in order to determine similarity
and function. Such developments could lead to the
discovery of a common resistance mechanism in all
plants.
Research is under way to determine how different
plants recognize pathogens, to understand the mechanisms
that activate the virus warning signals, in cells not in
contact with virus particles.
Biotechnology has facilitated the conservation of
genetic resources. These are propagated vegetatively or
in vitro or, indeed, by cryopreservation in the case of
the more difficult plants.
Some 20 resistance genes in plants have been isolated
and cloned. The gene for resistance to tobacco mosaic
could be transferred to other species, benefiting some
150 types of plants, including tomatoes, eggplant and
sweet pepper.12 A dozen or more plant genetic
maps will have been completed by the year
2000.13 The work is finished for Arabidopsis
and rice, and is near completion for tomato, bean, maize
and wheat.
Some 25 000 transgenic field trials were conducted
between 1986 and 1997, involving over 60 crops but
focusing mainly on maize, tomato, soybean, rapeseed,
potato and cotton, and concentrating on ten
characteristics linked to quality, herbicide tolerance
and resistance to insects and viruses.13
In the early 1990s, China was the first country to
commercialize transgenic plants resistant first to the
tobacco virus, then to the tomato virus.
A total of 12 million hectares were planted to
transgenic crops in 1997, some 64 percent of which in the
United States earning an estimated US$60 million for
cotton in 1996 and $190 million for maize in
1997.14
Crop productivity has also increased thanks to greater
fertilizer application. Between 1961 and 1996, world
consumption of nitrogen rose from 12 million to 83
million tonnes, phosphate from 11 million to 31 million
tonnes and potassium from 9 million to 21 million tonnes.
New granulation and dressing formulations have enhanced
fertilizer performance.
Since 1989, two million farmers in Asia, Africa, the
Near East and Latin America have adopted integrated
methods of biological control, saving governments more
than US$180 million per year from the elimination of
pesticide subsidies, notably in Indonesia, India, the
Philippines, Viet Nam and Ghana.
B) Animal production
World meat production more than tripled between 1961
and 1997, from 68 million to 221 million tonnes, with
developing countries increasing their output sixfold from
18 million to 111 million tonnes.15 The
increase was particularly strong for poultry and
pigmeat.
This was primarily due to higher productivity,
although larger herd size and production specialization
also played an important part.
Productivity was boosted by a combination of several
factors, including genetic improvement, quality of feed
and systems of management and health control, which
boosted animal growth and increased longevity.
This sector was quick to adopt biotechnology and
artificial insemination is now the most common and
effective technique for improving and disseminating
genetic resources. Some 100 million cattle inseminations
are carried out worldwide, 16 million in the developing
countries.16
Embryo transfer, a common practice for cattle breeding
in developed countries, shortens calving intervals and
reduces the risk of transmission of disease. The
technique is further refined with the freezing,
splitting, cloning and sexing of embryos.
Egg cells from live animals are matured and
impregnated in vitro then frozen and transplanted,
permitting earlier and greater benefit from reproduction
potential.
The techniques of direct injection into the pronucleus
and insertion of gene construction in the genome give us
coding for the production of human alpha-lactalbumin and
the improvement of cow milk or sheep wool.
The genetic mapping of cattle, sheep and pigs is at a
very advanced stage and is under way for chickens.
DNA cloning techniques and reversible quiescence have
been very successful. The Scottish ewe, Dolly, received
much publicity, more than the New Zealand cow, Lady,
where a somatic cell was removed, reprogrammed and
inserted into an egg cell which was then taken to term,
producing a female calf.16
Biotechnology might have a future function in dealing
with disastrous epidemics such as the swine fever that
cost the Netherlands more than US$2 billion, half of
which were public funds, or the bovine spongiform
encephalopathy that has already cost the United Kingdom
Government $2.5 billion, or the fowl plague in Hong Kong
that resulted in the slaughter of 1.5 million
chickens.16
C) Fish production and aquaculture
Fishery production rose from 38 million tonnes in 1961
to 94 million tonnes in 1997,17 but existing
catch capacity far exceeds quantities that are likely to
be landed while at the same time allowing for sustainable
stock replenishment.
Fortunately, aquacultural output increased from 2
million to 28 million tonnes during the same
period.17 Aquaculture now accounts for 15
percent of total supply and is expected to reach 30
percent by 2010.18
Progress in fisheries has essentially related to stock
assessment, location and monitoring of resources, as well
as the improvement of fishing gear and fish processing
equipment.
New technologies include ultrasonic and acoustic
surveying for better identification and quantification of
targeted species; satellite tracking of vessel movement;
and mechanisms to reduce the incidental catch of birds,
turtles, marine mammals and endangered species.
Biotechnology developed for animal production,
particularly selective reproduction, has also been tested
for possible application in aquaculture. For example,
transgenic salmon with modified genetic coding for growth
regulation now develop four to six times faster in their
first year of life than normal salmon.19 Work
has already begun on the complete genetic map of
salmon.
D) Agribusiness
The processing of agricultural products is an
extremely important industry in economic terms: it is
worth some US$393 billion in the United States and $216
billion in Japan.
Gene transfer already facilitates fermentation and
resistance factors make processing industries more
efficient. Genetically modified bacteria are used to
produce enzymes, notably Bacillus subtilis for beer,
chocolate syrup and maltose or
alpha-acetolactate-decarboxylase for beer and
alcohol.20 Important work is under way on the
genetic mapping of bacteria and yeasts.
E) Natural resources
Fresh water is the essential element of all biological
activity. Agriculture accounts for 70 percent of use of
this rare resource, which itself only represents 2.5
percent of the planet's total volume of
water.21 The amount available per caput is
declining rapidly in correlation with population
growth.
There is no doubt that water will be the main source
of discord in the next millennium, particularly in the
215 interboundary river basins that comprise 50 percent
of water resources. By 2025, it is estimated that 26
countries will be water-deficient, with less than 500 m3
per person per year, while a further nine will be
water-poor, with less than 1 000 m3 per person per
year.22 The emphasis of any policy to avert
conflicts should be centred on the actual implementation
of the 100 or so treaties on the coordinated management
of transboundary resources that have been signed in the
last 40 years and on concluding further similar
agreements.
The irrigated land area has tripled since 1950 to 275
million hectares, representing only 17 percent of
cultivated land area but accounting for 40 percent of
agricultural production. Between 1950 and 1985, 50
percent of the increase in food supply can be attributed
to irrigation, and as much as 80 percent since
then.23
The fact that high-yielding varieties have lower stems
means that they use water more efficiently. Wheat, for
example, produced 0.48 kg of grain per cubic metre of
water consumed in 1950 but 0.92 kg in
1997.24
Studies on the physical, chemical and biological
factors that affect conditions of water movement and
storage in the soil as well as on plant
evapotranspiration should help improve irrigation or
drainage machinery and techniques.
New zero- and minimum-till cropping techniques are now
used to reduce soil erosion. These also lessen the
removal of carbon monoxide from the soil which would
otherwise contribute towards global warming.
The study of soil microorganisms that convert urea
into volatile ammonia which is toxic to plant life should
improve our understanding of urease. Examination of this
enzyme which is responsible for soil degradation and a
better understanding of its structure and mode of
functioning will help develop effective inhibitors.
Finally, the assessment of climatic, atmospheric and
edaphic factors should shed light on their constituent
elements: temperature, insolation, rainfall, pressure,
atmospheric humidity and cover, wind and evaporation.
Their impact on crop production and photosynthesis, and
on animal production and reproduction in particular,
could thus be better controlled.
F) Outlook
Science and technology have therefore helped world
agricultural production to outstrip population growth.
Average annual agricultural and population growth was 2.4
and 1.9 percent, respectively, between 1961 and 1980; and
2.1 and 1.6 percent between 1981 and 1997.
However, there has been a slowdown in average annual
increase in fertilizer consumption and tractor
utilization, which fell from 7.1 and 3.4 percent,
respectively, between 1961 and 1980 to 0.4 percent and
1.0 percent between 1981 and 1996.
If current trends continue, the annual growth of
agricultural production will be 1.8 percent and of
population 1.6 percent for the period 1989-90 to
2010.25 The gap would therefore narrow,
leaving 680 million people still without adequate access
to food. Hence the importance of a worldwide effort to
accelerate production, particularly in the 83 low-income
food-deficit countries.
This is the rationale behind FAO's Special Programme
for Food Security which offers these countries the
prospect of sustainable agricultural growth that is
environmentally friendly and that is assured by water
control by rural communities through irrigation and
drainage microprojects. A pilot phase geared towards the
intensification of crop production using revised green
revolution techniques, diversification through
short-cycle livestock production and aquaculture as well
as the identification of socio-economic constraints was
conducted over two to three years in a representative
sample of some 30 sites per country. The programme, which
is already operational in 37 countries and under
formulation in 36 others, is then completed with a
macro-economic phase of assistance to agricultural
policy-making, the formulation of agricultural investment
plans and the preparation of feasibility studies of
bankable projects.
IV Impact and risk
If agricultural progress, lato sensu, has given us
such positive and tangible results, why is there such
fear, concern and hostility towards the impact and risk
of certain technologies, especially biotechnology?
I should like to offer a three-stranded
explanation.
- The first element is existential.
- Psychophilosophical factors constitute one
facet.
Throughout their existence, human beings have sought
answers to the three basic questions: Where do we come
from? Where are we now? Where are we going? The answers
so far (whether doctrinal or religious) have provided us
with a degree of intellectual comfort and reassurance,
fortunate in the knowledge that we escape the determinism
of nature. But we, who had always considered ourselves
superior and free, have recently discovered from the
advances of molecular biology that all living organisms,
whether viruses, bacteria, plants or animals, even
intelligent animal life, possess the same system of
coding and expression of genetic information. With DNA,
the basic purveyor of genetic information and coding, it
is theoretically possible to have one gene express
genetic information from any other living
being.26 Hence the stirring deep in our minds
of ancestral fears popularized by the creation of
Frankenstein and of Dr Moreau. Such obsessive anxiety and
desperate confusion turn to torment and nightmare with
the race to establish the human genetic map, especially
when advances in xenografting and human gene transfer to
donor animals take us ever closer to the time when it
will be possible to transplant animal organs into
humans.
In terms of the history of human thought we seem,
therefore, to be going back in time. Instead of
Nietzsche's resonant "God is dead", we find ourselves
back to Malraux's "is man dead?".27 Having
been elevated to Olympian heights by the human soul, we
are harshly brought to earth among hard somatic
realities. We have metamorphosed from God's image into a
commonplace biological computer that can be modified and
programmed like any other organism living in the
biosphere. We must therefore use all our intellectual
strength to re-establish the grounds of our uniqueness
and superiority.
There is no longer assurance in Heidegger's
existentialist response that "the essence of human
reality lies in its Existenz, that among the world's
living creatures, only humans transgress, outdistancing
all the others and themselves continually".28
This demise of our assurance and confidence was
pronounced by Karl Jaspers who stated that "whereas at
the beginning of history human physical existence was
threatened by the forces of nature, it is now the world
that humans themselves have built which threatens their
very essence".29
- Biological risks constitute the other existential
facet.
Illness from Salmonella and Escherichia coli
contamination in meat has increased, particularly
diarrhoea and gastro-enteritis, affecting millions and
killing thousands of people every year. The Hazard
Analysis Critical Control Point system was developed in
the United States to deal with this situation, providing
a better alternative to sampling methodology.
Slaughterhouse and meat processing operators are required
to identify the stages during which contamination occurs,
such as cutting and chopping, and to conduct
microbiological tests in compliance with safety
standards. Scientific progress has helped reduce the time
needed to detect pathogen bacteria from 48 hours to five
minutes. New tests now enable haemorrhagic Escherichia
coli to be detected in under eight hours instead of three
days.30
Feeding herbivores contaminated animal proteins has
produced bovine spongiform encephalopathy and risk of
Creutzfeld-Jakob disease in humans. Spread of the disease
is checked by slaughtering and controlling the export of
contaminated or suspect animals. In response to this
situation, FAO organized an expert consultation in March
1997 which recommended that a code of practice be drawn
up for good animal feeding. The Codex Executive Committee
is in the process of coordinating its drafting. The
United States bans the feeding of ruminants with
by-products from the processing of protein-based matter.
The World Health Organization has also organized expert
consultations to examine aspects relating to human and
animal nutrition.
Other products also pose public health problems.
Hormones used in animal feed or produced by genes
transferred to plants and animals can cause cancer and
loss of bone calcium, especially if consumed in large
doses. Limits and acceptable daily intakes are determined
by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives
(JECFA) for their safe utilization in accelerating animal
growth.
The antibiotics used for animal growth or treatment
leave residues in meat which, if consumed in large
quantities &endash; particularly liver and kidney
&endash; can provoke allergic reactions or affect the
intestinal flora, causing gastro-enteritis or building
resistance among microorganisms that are harmful to human
health. Consumption of veal treated with clenbuterol
caused food poisoning in Italy in 1996, manifested by
disorders of the nervous system and gastro-enteritis. The
consumption of treated beef liver caused similar problems
in Spain and Germany.31
Toxic substances, or allergens, are produced either by
genetic transfer or by metabolic change induced by such
transfer. Mycotoxins can cause cancer and heavy metals
such as mercury can produce neurological disorders.
The genetically modified microorganisms used in food
production can interact with the human digestive flora
and modify the balance. Care also has to be taken not to
introduce pathogens or to transfer genetic information to
the other microorganisms.
- The second element is environmental
degradation.
Animal and plant species are rapidly disappearing. The
current rate of documented extinction is 50 to 100 times
higher than the average natural rate of the past 500
million years (excluding periods of massive extinction);
and these figures are considered to be
underestimates.32
The agricultural biodiversity base is shrinking: of 50
000 estimated terrestrial vertebrates, only 30 animal
species have been domesticated and kept on farms.
Similarly, wheat and rice by themselves account for half
of dietary energy consumption, while nine plant species
provide three quarters of food-based
energy.33
The careless use of transgenes could also upset the
ecological balance:34
- The dispersal of transgenic pollen could result in
the fertilization of varieties of the same species. This
could upset the balance of associations between
microorganisms and cultivated plants. Precautions needed
to avoid such dissemination include the adequate
separation of plots, engineering of male sterility and
desynchronization of sexual maturities.
- Interspecific crossing by hybridization between
transgenic plant and related wild species could, for
example, transfer herbicide resistance to a weed.
Precautions include the prevention of pollination and
avoidance of bacterial intermediation.
- Finally, resistance can be induced by mutation,
leading to the development of resistant biotypes
(microorganisms, insects or weeds) or to the outbreak of
a given pest in the event that its rivals are destroyed
or debilitated.
The same risk applies in aquaculture where transgenic
specimens can cross-breed with the natural population.
Broodstock must therefore be carefully separated and fish
intended for consumption must be sterilized.
Deforestation causes an annual loss of 11 million
hectares.
Illegal or inappropriate natural resource utilization
leads to serious degradation:
- Water erosion removes the topsoil from more than 1
000 million hectares.35
- Wind erosion affects 550 million hectares,
particularly in arid and semi-arid regions.
- Chemical degradation affects 240 million hectares,
with nutrient loss, salinization, acidification,
pollution and contamination. An estimated 21 million
tonnes of nitrogen from fertilizer and animal waste are
lost each year to groundwaters.36
- Waterlogging and salinization affect 24 percent of
irrigated land and 4 percent of arable land is exposed to
physical degradation, compaction, trampling and
flooding.
- Pesticides pollute water, soil and air and destroy
the biological equilibrium of organisms. Germany spends
US$75 million to $100 million each year rendering its
water fit for human consumption, which is the amount
needed to clear all obsolescent pesticides from Africa,
at an average cost of $3 500 to $5 000 per
tonne.36
- The third element is the media.
Negative impacts and risks are amplified in an
environment where public opinion can react and pressure
authorities through consumer boycotts, protests,
demonstrations and electoral sanctions.
Civil society is now sensitized by non-governmental
organizations that are quick to engage in newsworthy
actions or initiate court proceedings to oppose a
perceived threat to humanity. Their concerns and actions
are then reported by the powerful media, especially in
the form of television images that are beamed across the
globe by the ever increasing number of satellites.
This helps foster an "anti-technology" psychosis that
often clouds the distinction between imaginary danger and
real risk that does indeed call for precaution.
V. Resolving the antinomies
Feelings may run high, but scientists are expected to
deliberate the answers in an atmosphere of calm and
measured consideration, basing their decisions on
quantifiable and verifiable facts which are hallmarks of
their function.
This endeavour to rise above the antagonisms is
essentially a personal exercise, having to do with
conscience which always sets what should be against what
is.37 This is the private battleground of
human beings vis-à-vis themselves and others. This
is the esoteric universe of beliefs, convictions and
uncertainties where the only guiding thread is scientific
method.
However, there are also structured answers beyond this
microcosm that exist in the collective framework where
scientists have just as fundamental a role to play.
Their profession requires them to build a code whose
basic principles will withstand the ravages of time and
the illusions of events. This referential rigging must,
however, be able to absorb the unforeseen changes of
science and permit the frail vessel of curiosity and
research to be blown by the gentle breeze or the raging
storm out towards the high seas of human knowledge and
progress.
At the governmental level, consultative and executive
bodies have been put in place to assess the risks,
establish the rules and equip the authorities with the
grounds for appropriate sanctions.
At the international level, there are mechanisms to
establish standards:
- for food products: the Codex Alimentarius
(FAO/WHO);
- for plants: the International Plant Protection
Convention, the Convention on the Prior-Informed
Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and
Pesticides in International Trade (FAO/UNEP) and the
International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources
(FAO). These are consolidated by the International
Code of Conduct for Plant Germplasm Collecting and
Transfer (FAO), and that for plant biotechnologies
which is under preparation by the Commission on
Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture;
- for animal health: the International Animal Health
Code of the International Office of Epizootics and the
regional agreements in operation in Europe, Asia,
Latin America and the Caribbean;
- for fisheries: the Agreement to Promote Compliance
with International Conservation and Management
Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas (FAO) and
the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (FAO)
are two central regulatory instruments.
Various mechanisms and institutions have been set up
to implement these agreements and codes of conduct at the
international and regional levels.
Finally, the Convention on Biological Diversity has
included in its negotiations a protocol on biosafety to
guarantee the safe use of all biological products and
applications for human health, biodiversity and
environmental sustainability, to ensure enhanced world
food security. This protocol should be finalized and
adopted at an Extraordinary Conference of the Parties to
the Convention in 1999.
In July 1998, FAO also established an internal
committee on ethics in food and agriculture.
It is, therefore, the scientists who provide the
objective base for the existence and validity of all
these standards and agreements that relate to the codes
and conventions.
They are also active in establishing the underlying
ethical principles in discussions in committees on such
matters. They thus play a lead role from the beginning to
the end of the process. It is therefore logical to "make
them responsible for their conduct, that is, to hold them
to account for their conduct".38
VI. Conclusion
Today's scientists are the vectors of dynamism in
ecosystems and their duty is to act in accordance with
moral principles.39 With regard to the biotic
community, they have to increase food productivity while
maintaining the biological equilibrium. With regard to
the biosphere, they have to ensure an environment that is
healthy and safe for humans.
But beyond these two often conflicting objectives,
they generate techniques that are not neutral in terms of
accessibility - the determinant of equity - as the level
of capital required may be high or low and costs can
fluctuate over time.
The value of a judgement will therefore depend on the
time factor in a short-, medium- or long-term perspective
framework.
In scientific ethics, therefore, there can be no true
position that can be demonstrated or proved, but rather a
viewpoint based on praxis which becomes ideological
insofar as it refers to a final purpose.
Different schools of philosophy are currently engaged
in the bioethics debate. These can be classified into two
categories based on a heteronomous perception of moral
standards external to humans or on an autonomous
perception whereby moral standards are imposed by
humans.40
This apparent dichotomy in fact masks the two "Janus"
perspectives of the same whole. Scientists will decide on
their conduct on the basis of intrinsic, psychological
and ideological factors. But they will also take into
account the extrinsic rules that have been established by
their peers in the professional context and within civil
society.
"All the highly praised technological progress that
epitomizes our civilization is but an axe in the hands of
the criminal",41 a great scholar warned us,
while a well-known writer reminded us that "the chasm of
history is wide enough for everyone ... that a
civilization has the same fragility as a
life".42
In the perpetual quest for knowledge that is so vital
to human progress, there is only a narrow margin between
the erring of evil exploration and the brilliance of
benign genius.
Honourable Members of the Academy,
"The disintegration of the modern world has led us
into obscurity where the problems are incoherent and the
solutions contradictory. Yesterday's truth is no more,
that of tomorrow has yet to be built".43 But,
"it would be madness to wish Prometheus back in chains.
On the contrary, we need to apply the scientific mind to
the difficult problems of our present
existence"44 so that, with science and
conscience, we may finally resolve the agonizing dilemma
of how to feed the world.
___________________________
1Dictionnaire de
philosophie, J. Russ.
2Encyclopédie philosophique
universelle, S. Auroux.
3Encyclopédie philosophique
universelle, S. Auroux.
4Encyclopedia universalis, L.
Cuénot.
5FAO internal note.
6Discours de la méthode,
Descartes.
7FAO internal note.
8FAO statistics.
9Memento de l'agronome, fourth
edition.
10Les manipulations
génétiques, C.G. Marchand.
11FAO internal note on biotechnology.
12Science, the endless resource,
USA.
13FAO internal note.
14Science, the endless resource,
USA.
15FAO statistics.
16FAO internal note.
17FAO statistics.
18World agriculture: towards 2010,
FAO.
19Science, the endless resource,
USA.
20OGM &endash; panorama et contribution de
l'INRA.
21WFAAS statistics.
22FAO internal note.
23Water in the 21st century, World
Water Council.
24FAO internal note.
25FAO statistics.
26OGM &endash; Panorama et contribution de
l'INRA.
27Conférences de l'Unesco,
André Malraux.
28Being and time, Heidegger.
29Man in the modern age, Karl
Jaspers.
30Science, the endless resource, USA.
31FAO internal note.
32Science, the endless resource,
USA.
33Science, the endless resource,
USA.
34OGM &endash; Panorama et contribution de
l'INRA.
35Global assessment of soil
degradation, UNEP/GLASOD.
36FAO internal note.
37Histoire de mes pensées,
Alain.
38Introduction to philosophy,
Hegel.
39Fundamental principles of the metaphysics
of ethics, Kant.
40Fondements philosophiques de
l'éthique médicale, S. Rameix.
41Letters, Einstein.
42Variété III, P.
Valery.
43Lettre à un otage, A. de St
Exupéry.
44Conférences de l'Unesco, F.
Joliot.
