In the discussion of ethics behind genetic manipulation, there seems to be tension between science and its technological innovation, and the implementation of that science. Do conflicts arise because the science and technology are bad in and of themselves? Is it the way the science is used, whether in a positive or negative manner, that is the real root of the problem? Or is it a more complex mutual relationship where both are at fault?
There is a part of me that finds nothing fundamentally wrong with, say, the genetic modification of a grain of rice in areas of malnutrition so it has higher levels of certain nutrients. If anything it can be seen as a pure example of good science. This is what science is supposed to do. It is a clever answer to a difficult problem.
And yet, I still find myself wanting to oppose it...for what seems to be no reason other than it is genetic engineering...because genetic engineering is bad isn't it? That is what we have been taught and led to believe. It seems like there is a general categorization process that clumps all genetic modification under this umbrella of negativity. Why? Maybe it is because of our stubborn, liberal, pretentious, earthy granola, big business hating environment we find ourselves in so it is our social duty to represent this platform.
For me that's a little too cynical and pessimistic. To make my conscience feel better, I'd like to think that overall it is a delicate game where, in this case, genetically modifying organisms isn't necessarily bad in itself. It can actually be used for greatly improving livelihood and is a pure example of scientific innovation. But the trouble lies in the implementation of this technology, and this is where the ethical issues stem from. For what if Monsanto was comprised of environment and human loving localvores who are genetic modification purists and are leading the way in ethically sustained food? Would we still oppose them as strongly as we do the current multi-national corporation? I assume we would not. So perhaps genetic modification isn't totally at fault here. I suppose, just like anything else in this world, something fundamentally good can be used for bad.
I think intrinsic arguments against GMOs are very subjective. Personally, I do think it is fundamentally wrong. I disagree with your statement supporting the genetic modification of rice for nutritional reasons. Something in me screams "That's unnatural!" If the big corporations weren't homogenizing crop production in the first place (and therefore people had access to a variety of crops as they used to) then they wouldn't be malnourished in the first. I think it is much healthier to eat a balanced diet, getting nutrients from plant-based sources, than from a modified gene within a grain of rice. People nourished themselves for centuries without genetic modification - why is it necessary now? I think the real problem is social and economic inequality, in part caused by agribusiness's monopolization, which prevents people from growing and consuming indigenous foods. Instead, they are going poor from planting GM rice, soy, corn, and wheat on an industrial scale. So, even if GM foods are fundamentally good, as you argue, they wouldn't be necessary in a fair social system. I suppose you could counter that such a system will never exist, so we need to use GM foods to combat the malnutrition that does exist now. However, given the monopolization of the GM industry by agribusiness, the "bad guys" are in control of the "healing" mechanism. And this can't change without an overhaul of the system anyway.
ReplyDeleteHey Nick!
ReplyDeleteWe seem to be struggling with the same conundrum. I too find myself thinking that the science demonstrated in the Golden Rice is pretty extraordinary and, dare I say it, brilliant. I do not believe that science is at fault, so much as this technology becoming "property" and the ways in which large organizations monopolize the food systems.
@Greta & Nick: This may be completely off topic and this may be out of the blue, but what is the difference between the unnaturalness of GMO food and the unnaturalness of say, synthetic clothing? Synthetics are made from man-manipulated fibers stemming from chemicals, so if cotton and hemp are the natural counterparts to these artificial options, (like organic vs GMO) what makes GMO food worse than synthetic? Why is one form of unnatural worse than another?
I also have a problem with the way in which these large companies crush farmers underfoot but I do not know that if these farmers were to return to subsistence farming, that they would be any better off economically. I'm not sure if I am convinced that subsistence farming would completely eradicate poverty and malnutrition.
Hi Nick!
ReplyDeleteI like your thinking! I also often wonder whether GMOS are really bad? or if we have been brought up in the wake of environmentalists employing the precautionary principle? I recently asked in my weekly question whether it was the science or the business which is more at fault for our current situation.
The ideas you raised made me think of transhumanism. While transhumanism, as a movement, calls for the development and implementation of devices geared to enhance the human being, I struggled to believe the benefits would outweigh the risks and harms. No matter when a new device hits the market there will be discrepancy as to who can afford and begin to benefit from the applications. For instance, low-income school systems often still struggle to provide lab equipment and even computers to students. Yet, in higher level socioeconomically-ranked schools, students are exposed to smart boards which enhance their visual and interactive learning. I believe there will always be some sense of unequal distribution. However, as you point out perhaps there is a good side and we corrupt the technology in how we use it. One instance in which I believe that people should be allowed to change themselves is using technology to solve a health issue. For instance, getting a hip or knee replacement or getting a prosthetic. I believe these events tie into transhumanism, yet in a way that shows some good can come from bodily reconstructions.
Technological developments in sciences and other fields have been benefiting us for many years. We have used armor but because we chose to go to war and we used bows and arrows when we were hunters and gatherers. Our choices to fight and our needs to eat served as the stimuli which pushed individuals to craft these devices and items. Now we are using industrialized technology, chemicals, and 'fuel hungry' machines to produce our food. Can this really be considered good science compared to the age old technology which truly assisted our ancestors?
Again, maybe as you said, it is how we use what we have been given. For instance, armor helped but it was eventually put down for times of peace and bows and arrows were put down at the dinner table, but no one seems to be stopping to reflect on the damage done by industrial agriculture or stopping to consider that perhaps GMOs are not so bad but that we are using them in the wrong way.
I also wonder what those who work for Monsanto are eating?