By
David Suzuki
 |
| David Suzuki, a Geneticist |
I am a geneticist by training. At one time, I
had one of the largest research grants and genetics labs in Canada. The time I
spent in this lab was one of the happiest periods of my life and I am proud of
the contribution we made to science. My introductory book is still the most
widely used genetics text in the world.
When I graduated
as a geneticist in 1961, I was full of enthusiasm and determined to make a
mark. Back then we knew about DNA, genes, chromosomes, and genetic regulation.
But today when I tell students what our hot ideas were in '61, they choke with
laughter. Viewed in 2013, ideas from 1961 seem hilarious. But when those
students become professors years from now and tell their students what was hot
in 2013, their students will be just as amused.
At the cutting
edge of scientific research, most of our ideas are far from the mark - wrong,
in need of revision, or irrelevant. That's not a derogation of science; it's
the way science advances. We take a set of observations or data, set up a
hypothesis that makes sense of them, and then we test the hypothesis. The new
insights and techniques we gain from this process are interpreted tentatively
and liable to change, so any rush to apply them strikes me as downright
dangerous.
No group of
experts should be more aware of the hazards of unwarranted claims than
geneticists. After all, it was the exuberance of geneticists early in this
century that led to the creation of a discipline called eugenics, which aimed
to improve the quality of human genes.
These scientists were every bit as clever,
competent, and well-meaning as today's genetic engineers; they just got carried
away with their discoveries. Outlandish claims were made by eminent geneticists
about the hereditary nature of traits such as drunkenness, nomadism, and
criminality, as well as those judged "inferior" or
"superior." Those claims provided scientific respectability to
legislation in the US prohibiting interracial marriage and immigration from
countries judged inferior, and allowed sterilization of inmates of mental
institutions on genetic grounds. In Nazi Germany, geneticist Josef Mengele held
peer-reviewed research grants for his work at Auschwitz. The grand claims of
geneticists led to "race purification" laws and the Holocaust.
Today, the
leading-edge of genetics is in the field of biotechnology. The basis of this
new area is the ability to take DNA (genetic material) from one organism and
insert it into a different species. This is truly revolutionary. Human beings
can't normally exchange genes with a carrot or a mouse, but with DNA technology
it can happen.
However, history
informs us that though we love technology, there are always costs, and since
our knowledge of how nature works is so limited, we can't anticipate how those
costs will manifest. We only have to reflect on DDT, nuclear power, and CFCs,
which were hailed as wonderful creations but whose long-term detrimental
effects were only found decades after their widespread use.
Now, with a more
wise and balanced perspective, we are cutting back on the use of these
technologies. But with genetically modified (GM) foods, this option may not be
available. The difference with GM food is that once the genie is out of the
bottle, it will be difficult or impossible to stuff it back. If we stop using
DDT and CFCs, nature may be able to undo most of the damage - even nuclear
waste decays over time. But GM plants are living organisms. Once these new life
forms have become established in our surroundings, they can replicate, change,
and spread; there may be no turning back. Many ecologists are concerned about
what this means to the balance of life on Earth that has evolved over millions
of years through the natural reproduction of species.
Genomes are
selected in the entirety of their expression. In ways we barely comprehend, the
genes within a species are interconnected and interact as an integrated whole.
When a gene from an unrelated species is introduced, the context within which
it finds itself is completely changed. If a taiko drum is plunked in the middle
of a symphony orchestra and plays along, it is highly probable the resultant
music will be pretty discordant. Yet based on studies of gene behavior derived
from studies within a species, biotechnologists assume that those rules will
also apply to genes transferred between species. This is totally unwarranted.
As we learned
from experience with DDT, nuclear power and CFCs, we only discover the costs of
new technologies after they are extensively used. We should apply the
Precautionary Principle with any new technology, asking whether it is needed
and then demanding proof that it is not harmful. Nowhere is this more important
than in biotechnology because it enables us to tamper with the very blueprint
of life.
Since GM foods
are now in our diet, we have become experimental subjects without any choice.
(Europeans say if they want to know whether GMOs are hazardous, they should
just study North Americans.) I would have preferred far more experimentation
with GMOs under controlled lab conditions before their release into the open,
but it's too late.
We have learned
from painful experience that anyone entering an experiment should give informed
consent. That means at the very least food should be labeled if it contains
GMOs so we each can make that choice.
David T Suzuki PhD is an
award-winning scientist, environmentalist and broadcaster. Web:www.davidsuzuki.org
