Dialogue: Ignorance and emotion no help to the genetic debate

By IAN FERGUSON*

You would think that in the middle of what is our best chance for a reasoned, rational debate on genetic engineering, we would be spared further unsubstantiated, emotional articles on the subject.

Columnist Elizabeth Easther used her column in the Weekend Herald to plead for people to make submissions to the Royal Commission on Genetic Engineering. This could have been a reasonable and welcome plea for people of all persuasions to get involved. Instead, she has confirmed our worst fears that the debate may still rest on ignorance and emotion rather than a consideration of facts.

We were encouraged to fill in the Greenpeace form - you don't have to know anything about the subject - and in some way this would let the commission know the level of concern. It will certainly provide numbers, but the commission will have no idea whether the submitters know anything about the subject of their protest.

It doesn't matter whether you are for, against or drifting around the middle, we should expect anyone advocating a stance on anything as important as this to substantiate their views.

We, as scientists, are required and expected to provide back-up data, have it scrutinised and have our conclusions or recommendations qualified by estimates of doubt and uncertainty. Ms Easther feels no such compulsion to adhere to any such standard of debate or advice.

Her imagery of mutant forms has more in common with the local film sets for the Lord of the Rings than anything that I or my colleagues are even remotely aware of, although even there, within the confines of their various genotypes, Tolkein's characters are probably perfectly formed.

Ms Easther uses hyperbole - billions of years, salad with fins, flippers or scales. Hyperbole is a literary device designed to ensnare the emotions and cover up a lack of knowledge or facts.

What is it about society that makes it so enthusiastic about scientific achievements which appeal to it, but shows no desire or responsibility to understand the supporting structure?

We are living in a hard scientific world, but would rather evaluate science through emotion than through scrutiny of the facts and uncertainties. As an example, let's take Ms Easther's concerns (ignoring the absurd examples). She focuses on the transfer of genes across organisms.

She does not tell us what specifically offends her about transfer, for example, of a cold-resistant gene across species.

If it is the artificial mixing of genes from different species, presumably she doesn't eat nectarines or wouldn't ride a mule. If she believes that animal genes don't exist in plants, she should talk to any scientist working on analysing plant and animal genomes. She would find there are hundreds of functional DNA sequences which are the same.

Ms Easther has so many genes in her that are identical to those in cows, zebra fish or even those friendly GMO regulars, toads, that she might well wonder how she wakes up every morning still looking human.

Perhaps she has moral or ethical reasons for opposing this. Well, let's hear them spelled out. For some reason, DNA sequences have been imbued with a spirituality and morality which no other chemical has yet attained.

The concept of a species is manmade, as are most of our food crop species themselves, in that they are the result of enhancement or silencing of genes over time through selection and breeding.

In recognising species, we don't make a moral decision but a biological one: a dog won't mate with a cat, but not for moral reasons.

A large part of our native flora has been long thumbing its nose at botanists by hybridising - species cross-pollinating all on their own. Perhaps the idea of a naturally occurring hybrid swarm of coprosmas is distasteful.

If we are going to use this as an issue, we need to show an understanding of the concept of species and of the ethical and biological context.

Ms Easther's article reminds us that we will never resolve this important biological and ethical issue if we make up our minds at a facile level. Technical information on GE in general is widely available, as is that on environmental science, food safety and modern medical technology.

If she sees dangers, tell us, and give us back-up information. She is presumably being satirical in joking about tomato plants swimming to the compost heap to spawn, driven by their salmon genes. However, a good satirist knows her subject.

We need the public to take part in the royal commission. But if a submission is made without an attempt to understand the issues - and this does not always require highly technical, scientific expertise - it adds nothing to the debate.

* Dr Ian Ferguson is an Auckland plant scientist.