My vision of biotech debate in 2008

Blogger Brandon Keim has made a very interesting post on the Wired Science blog. Entitled, “A New Year’s Resolution: Use Less Plastic,” the post lists wishes Brandon would like fulfilled in 2008. I must confess that as we leapt from 2007 to 2008 on Monday night, I never thought of cataloguing my wishes for the New Year. This, however, doesn’t mean the lack of things I would like done or not done in 2008. 

Having read Brandon’s post, I am now persuaded to publicize my own wish-list for 2008. First, I must celebrate the success of this blog. I started this blog in June 2005 while I was a student at Wichita State University, to enhance public understanding of agricultural biotechnology. I was motivated by the lack of a voice to confront a small band of antibiotech critics who have taken it upon themselves to mislead the public about genetically modified foods. Scientists have not had the courage to stick their heads up: they normally choose to express their ire to a small specialized audience through refereed journals and high-profile scientific conferences in posh hotels. 

This blog has recorded unprecedented success. Daily traffic is high, and my inbox is always inundated with requests for interviews on the course the debate about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is taking. Before the inauguration of this blog, the GMOs debate was a one-side show: it was dominated by pseudo scientists, mostly affiliated with such entities as Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Union of Concerned Scientists and BioWatch. Now, before these organizations issue unscientific, baseless and propagandist rhetoric about crop genetic engineering, they must contend with the fact an eyebrow will be raised and accountability sought. 

So what would I like to see happen in 2008? Here is my wish-list:

• Think before you leap – I sometime chastise biotech critics as people with social science background, and who can’t conduct a simple laboratory experiment. Before public denouncing GM foods as unsafe for human consumption and the environment, I would encourage everybody to read this article entitled, Modern food biotechnology, human health and development: an evidence-based study, appearing on the World Health Organization (WHO) web site. Or read the article, Will genetically modified food be allergenic? by researchers S.L. Taylor and Hefle S.L. Through a blog post entitled, Some mischaracterization of biotech sugar beets, I found myself embroiled in a debate on whether herbicide-enhanced crops threaten human health.     

• Call a spade a spade – I have heard arguments that genetically modified crops are so unpopular that most farmers would rather shun them. This is a pure distortion of reality on the ground. Since the commercialization of the first biotech crop in 1995, acreage under their cultivation the world over continues to grow. The latest report by the International Service for the Acquistion of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) shows that “…the global area of biotech crops continued to climb for the tenth consecutive year at a sustained double-digit growth rate of 13%, or 12 million hectares (30 million acres), reaching 102 million hectares (252 million acres).” GM crops are being grown in about 22 countries, most in the developing world.
• Desist from shadowboxing – Last month, I found myself discussing what it is that antibiotech groups have with crop genetic engineering. While in search of a right answer, I bumped onto Alex Madrigal’s article, The Open Organism: Genetic Engineering in the Open Source Era, in which one reader commented:

I would argue that GM foods in a purely scientific way have enormous potential to increase yields… Unfortunately, the current industry players are pursuing hyper-capitalist models of: exclusivity arrangements; forced customer re-purchasing (farmers have to re-buy seeds every year); hyper-formula/gene copyrighting/ protection…  Solution: bring in hacker/researchers for cheap R&D, distribute in a widespread ‘p2p’ type way via ‘localized’ hubs and let the bulk of the release and the intensity of cheap R&D overcome all generics and other oppositions.. ((caveat - make sure that what you’re distributing is safe/effective — more time in controlled enviros)).

Am I wrong to say that crop genetic engineering is fine, only that those who work in marketing departments in biotech corporations need to do a better job of persuading farmers that it’s in their good interests to embrace GM crops? Perhaps, this is the most important thing I would like to see happen in 2008.