Please note that this is BBC copyright and may not be reproduced or copied
for any other purpose.
RADIO 4
CURRENT AFFAIRS
ANALYSIS
WRONG, SCARY OR THE GREATEST THING?
TRANSCRIPT OF A RECORDED DOCUMENTARY
Presenter: Andrew Dilnot
Producer: Nicola Meyrick
Editor: Nicola Meyrick
BBC
White City
201 Wood Lane
London
W12 7TS
0208 752 6252
Broadcast Date: 03.08.00
Repeat Date: 06.08.00
Tape Number: TLN029/00VT1031
Duration: 2745
Taking part in order of appearance:
Lord Melchett Executive Director, Greenpeace UK
Sir Robert May Government Chief Scientific Adviser
Professor David Cooper Philosopher, Durham University
Professor Nancy Cartwright Director of the Centre for the Philosophy
of Natural and Social Science, LSE
Jim Dunwell Professor of Plant Sciences at Reading University
Professor Brian Wynne Director of the Centre for the Study of
Environmental Change, Lancaster University
Dilnot : Rat gene enhanced tomato ate my hamster. Maybe thats
a tabloid headline we havent had yet, but the debate about genetically
modified food has been pretty fevered. Some people have even dressed up in
radiation suits, gone into a farmers field, and pulled up his crops.
What makes people so angry about a field full of plants? Lord Melchett, executive
director of Greenpeace UK was one of the radiation suited crusaders.
Melchett : Im persuaded that we shouldnt release genetically
engineered organisms into the environment that the
risks are too great because the consequences
are such that you wouldnt be able to reverse this. They would be
widespread, possibly global, certainly over very wide areas and possibly
very, very serious. So youre talking about one of those risks where
the chances of it happening might be slim but the consequences if it does
are really terrible.
May : There are those who would worry that the imprecisely conjectured
vague hazards that may arise, of which there are no examples, are just too
appalling to contemplate so we shouldnt even do it.
Dilnot : Sir Robert May, the
Governments chief scientific adviser.
May : Once you start applying the argument that something might go
wrong so you shouldnt do the new, we would still be in caves with people
opposing the idea of building a wattle and daub shelter because, who knows
it, maybe itll fall on your head. Which is not to say when you build
wattle and daub shelters you shouldnt build them carefully so as they
dont fall on your head and probably to build some test ones first to
make sure they dont fall on your head.
Dilnot : So for Peter Melchett the risks
are just too great, for Robert May risk is an inescapable part of progress.
And May isnt just any old scientist as well as being an academic
of great distinction hes got a long history of ecological concern,
and is a past trustee of the World Wide Fund for Nature. Melchett and May
both know what the science says and yet come to radically different conclusions,
evidence that theres much more than just scientific fact
at stake. Professor David Cooper, a philosopher from Durham University.
Cooper : Deep down what worries a lot of people about the new world
which biotechnology promises is a sort of worry which I think is gestured
at by talk of biotechnologists emulating Dr Frankenstein, playing God and
so on. I thought it was pretty well expressed by the
Prince
of Wales in his Reith lecture
when he referred to his fear that were coming to treat the world as
.. as he put it a great laboratory of life to treat living beings in the
world as mere mechanical processes to use and exploit and alter as we, or
if you like, they please.
Dilnot : There certainly are questions of values raised by genetic
modification how should we value risks that affect future generations,
or the possible benefits of vitamin enhanced rice as a response to blindness
in a faraway country, how far is it right to tamper with creation? But pointing
out the values side of the debate doesnt give us the answers, just
more to think about. And Professor Nancy Cartwright, Director of the Centre
for the Philosophy of Natural and Social Science at the LSE argues that in
debates like this we need to take everything seriously.
Cartwright : You cant have all your values satisfied at once.
You just cant always do the good thing. So, the question is how do
you decide when you cant maximise all your values at once what youre
going to do about this case. And I think its very important to then
have the specific case in front of you. So, one of the problems I think we
have here is that the discussion is too premature. I want to be told a whole
lot more about which foods are going to be genetically modified, how are
they going to be genetically modified, where is it going to be sold and so
forth. I mean I want
I need much more information not shall we genetically
modify foods or shall we not.
Dilnot : Because thats just too general a question
its almost like asking shall we go to war. For a minority
the answer to that question is simply NO. But for those who are
not Quakers or pacifists, the response must be against whom,
and why, and how, and with what objective
it makes no sense as an abstract question. Genetic modification seems
rather like that. You might just say NO, but in general it seems
right at least to look more closely, case by case. We cant completely
separate value from fact, but we do need more facts. And right now, as Robert
May recognises, theres a lot of noise, but not necessarily much
information, or rational debate.
May : Against the background of recent events, particularly
BSE, people hear various voices telling them its
OK, its not OK all the voices saying what youd expect
them to say and theres no product on the supermarket shelves
that motivates you to engage the debate. And there will be outline groups
who are simply reflexively in favour of it because theyre enthusiastic
about the technology. There will always be groups who are reflexively,
unquestioningly critical of it because they have a view of globalisation
and big business and that it makes them reflexively hostile. But the great
mess of the public, I think - just exhibit common sense at the moment
the moment we actually have something, a golden apple and you eat this apple
and youll be thin and witty, then people will be motivated to engage
the debate.
Dilnot : And what would we call this thin, witty apple? The Angus
Deayton, the Frank Muir? Weve probably got plenty of time to think
about it, because theres no sign of anything that exciting even on
the horizon. Now if the mass of the public is to be able to use its common
sense on all this, it needs to understand both questions about science and
about values. But lets start with the science. Jim Dunwell is Professor
of Plant Sciences at Reading University, and a leading GM practitioner. What
does he actually do in his lab?
Dunwell : You can put a piece of DNA,
literally now from any organism or you can, in some cases, make the DNA with
a machine, into a plant cell or a group of cells and its really done
by two main processes. One is to use a mechanical device, and this is the
so called gene gun which you might have heard about, whereby you take very,
very tiny particles of metal its usually gold and you
mix them with a DNA solution so the DNA sticks onto the surface of the gold
and then you use a small machine to shoot those particles at very high speed
into the plant cell and once the small particle is inside the cell, the DNA
comes off the surface of the metal and is incorporated into the genetic
material of that cell. And you then have to use your expertise as a cell
biologist to grow a whole new plant back from that single cell. And if
youre successful, and it doesnt always work of course, then the
plant you get back has the original characteristics plus whatever was encoded
by that tiny bit of DNA you put on. And thats one process. Alternatively,
which is a more biological one, is to use a naturally occurring bacterium
that lives in the soil, that transfers its own DNA into the roots or
stems of a plant and you can in fact you can take that bacterium, take away
the nasty parts of it, and stick in your own gene into the bacterium and
use that to do the same kind of thing, and then you grow up a whole new plant
thats had this bit of bacterial DNA attached to it. In most cases the
seeds that are produced the next generation include that new introduced gene.
Youre adding maybe one, two, three, four genes to a plant that has
twenty, thirty, forty thousand so youre not doing a whole lot of genetic
change to it but its a real and significant change.
Dilnot : That may be a wonderfully clear description of whats
done, but the truth that were adding only a small number of genes to
organisms that have many thousands doesnt seem enough to be sure that
therell be no unwelcome effects weve all experienced the
consequences of viral and bacterial infection, so know that small doesnt
mean harmless. And Jim Dunwell is well aware of some of the fears that
uncertainty - and rumour - have created in the popular imagination.
Dunwell : There are various modern myths when it comes to genetic
modification technology where people insist that already out there in the
market theres somewhere theres a tomato with fish genes in and
I dont want my tomatoes to taste of fish and that kind of position.
Clearly those are things that you could do but nobody wants to do them and
in the cases where theyre testing them theyre not very successful
anyway and they certainly havent got anywhere near the market place.
And the same when it comes to putting rat genes into food people will
say well Im avoiding GM crops because I think its got a
bit of an animal protein in it somewhere. There arent any such
things.
Dilnot : At least not on sale to the public, although they may be
the subject of research in university and commercial laboratories. Now most
of us are not really able to assess the results of all that research and
testing being done we have to trust others to help us to do that.
And here the role of government and civil service in monitoring, regulating
and enforcing standards in the public interest is crucial. Even the most
pro GM lobbyist would have to accept that the potential risks in this area
mean we cant just let the private sector get on with it. So what does
Robert May, chief scientific adviser for the UK, think the evidence suggests?
May : On food safety, I think its reasonably clear by this
time that there are no hazards offered that arent present in any novel
food. So there are obviously things you could do with this technology just
are there are things you could do with conventional breeding that would introduce
toxins into foods. And, basically, food is dangerous stuff thats why
one has to be careful. There are many natural foods that have to be cooked
before you eat them and so on. So we need to be cautious about it and I think
at the end of the day it may simply sharpen our scrutiny of all novel foods.
I think we should remember there is not a single example from all the consumption
of this food all around the world areas under cultivation roughly
one and a half times the size of Britain - of a concrete example and thats
because, I think, precautions for all novel foods are sound.
Dilnot : Not much concern there about eating the stuff, and theres
no doubt that we do now have a great deal of experience from around the world
of consumption of genetically modified crops over many years. And Robert
May isnt saying that there are no risks, rather that in the case of
food consumption the combination of testing and the evidence to date makes
him feel pretty secure. Well what about another risk killer weeds
escaping and driving out pre-existing species?
May : I would say there are questions we ought to ask more rigorously
for things sold in garden centres where theres a more of a real worry
than there is the conjectured and imagined worries of which there are no
concrete examples of the environmental problems of GM crops. And I would
wish us to be doing more work on this. We always knew pollen blows around
- is very unlikely to go a long distance - but it can always happen. Get
there on the mud on birds feet thats how plants get to
new islands. The real question is what are the conjectured things youre
worried about and if youre worried about super weeds, it is a very
chimerical worry and furthermore a worry that doesnt stack up.
Dilnot : So, super weeds get short shrift from Robert May, although
its worth remembering that we now know that pollen has carried much
further than the exclusion zones set for early trials of GM crops. But there
is a third area where Sir Robert is more concerned, aware that we understand
too little and could do damage, which is the impact of change on the whole
scale of bio-diversity and how ecological systems work. And this is an area
where Professor Brian Wynne, Director of the Centre for the Study of
Environmental Change at Lancaster University argues that there may be some
problems with how were doing the research, once were out of the
lab and into the fields.
Wynne : The design of the farm scale trials is one where you have,
usually split fields sometimes paired field sites, one of which has got the
GM crop and one of which has got the same crop but non-GM, with exactly the
same application of chemical herbicides and so on, so as to attempt to define
the bio- diversity changes which are generated by the introduction of the
GM crop. But, the implicit yardstick for defining change is change as compared
to existing chemically intensive agriculture.
Dilnot : So, basically whats happening is that politicians
are saying in the end to scientists well were quite happy with
the amount of damage that were doing to the environment with conventional
herbicides and pesticides and as long as you dont do much more damage
to the environment and that with GM, then its ok?
Wynne : Effectively, yes, thats right. But the limitations,
particularly, I think, with respect to soil microbiology and soil
micro-organisms, are colossal and the scientists themselves well recognise
that thats an area the farm scale trial do not assess. Geneticists
who are involved in some of the research on soil micro- organisms would say
well there are potentially a lot of changes that could occur there
that could be quite drastic in terms of soil fertility and a variety of other
ecological changes. We just dont know and the honest answer is
to say we dont know.
Dilnot : The effect of GM crops on the soil seems the area where
least is known, and the potential risks are great just the type of
question we should most want scientists to be addressing. So shouldnt
we stiffen our resolve to take great care, go on with the research, tread
very carefully when moving on to field and farm scale trials, and inch slowly
forward? That would be much more careful than we ever were with electricity,
or even nuclear power. But Peter Melchett thinks any release of GM organisms
into the environment is dangerous.
Melchett : You cant march off down the GM route and 15 years
later say, whoops wed rather be organic because by then genetically
engineered plants will be ubiquitous in the countryside and hedgerows and
roadside verges in the seed bank in fields. Seed banks which last for 50
years or more we know from the effects of sprays and so on that still wild
flower seeds will struggle in odd little corners to survive although increasingly
few. Or you go down the organic route and you put your time and your effort
and your research and your brain power and your intelligence and your wit
into making that really work well. And I think this is a clear choice.
Dilnot : Is there any evidence that would persuade you that if there
was some very major benefit to some group that it were worth doing this?
Melchett : No, I dont think there is, not thats
foreseeable.
Dilnot : You might think, along with Peter Melchett, that the possible
gains for a country like Britain are so small and the risks so big that
its just not worth it. And until the thin, witty golden apple comes
along that wont change. But there could still be an argument for using
GM crops in parts of the world where hunger and disease are endemic. Unless,
of course, you think its just wrong and will always be controlled by
mad scientists who have no respect for things many of us do care about.
Philosopher Professor David Cooper.
Cooper : I think a very important concept most of us work with is
the idea of whats normal and natural. If you can convince somebody
that somethings abnormal, unnatural, they dont like it. I think
what a lot of people feel is that the medical interventions they approve
of are those which however hi-tech somehow return them or their bodies to
normal, natural functioning. Now, in the case of GM foods, I think some people
see this as just an intervention in the normal and the natural. Its
not a matter of returning things to normal as certain kinds of medical
interventions might be seen.
Cartwright : The whole project of the Enlightenment begins from the
assumption that whats natural is pretty
bloody and that one of our big moral duties is to change nature and, in
particular, human society, to train, morally educate people so that they
dont behave as people do in a state of nature.
Dilnot : LSE philosopher Nancy Cartwright.
Cartwright : When you let nature run its course, people die younger,
their teeth fall out and thats the obvious scientific progress line
and its different to think theres something sacred about nature
and to think theres
there are certain behaviours and ways of
proceeding which are natural.
Dilnot : So theres nothing incoherent in holding creation in
very high esteem and even thinking there is something sacred about it and
thinking that its legitimate to intervene in it in certain ways including,
in principle, certain types of genetic modification?
Cartwright : I dont see any incoherence.
Dilnot : Simply subscribing to a nature is nice line,
doesnt get us off the hook of trying to discover, to understand, to
engage with the detail and the principles. Its tempting to say that
we can separate the science from the values, and just concentrate on whatever
matters to each of us. But that misses the crucial point that although we
may be able to study these issues separately, when we come to make a decision
we have to bring them together, and expect them to interact. Nancy Cartwright
sees this powerfully borne out in a fifty five year old dilemma faced by
her husband, the distinguished philosopher Sir Stuart Hampshire.
Cartwright : One way I like to illustrate the importance of filling
in the concrete detail to the resolution of the moral conflict where there
are conflict of values is a story that Stuart tells of interviewing a young
boy 18 years old student, a French fascist, who was being held by
the Free French and Stuart was allowed to interview him to try and extract
information about some communication system that could be used fairly immediately
to save the lives of British soldiers. And the question was, could Stuart
lie to him and tell him that if he gave the information, the Free French
wouldnt execute him. There was no possibility that they wouldnt
execute him. Could he lie? And, of course, there are the two sides to it.
One wants to save lives on the other hand its not just
a lie to a person, its a way one treats prisoners. Ive heard
Stuart tell this story often and every time he tells this story he puts in
different details. He had a very rich French meal with the Free French, he
went to the prison, the boy was in a cell, he had chains on his legs, hed
been reading Proust and it was freezing cold and he was hungry. Depending
on what facts he puts in, I find my judgement about what ought to be done
changes. I think that becomes very clear about a lot of cases that the details
about exactly how its done, whos involved, what their motives
are, whats likely to happen given those motives, whats likely
to happen given the social and institutional structure, really, really matter
to the trade-off between conflicting values.
Dilnot : So if the lesson here is that in complicated real dilemmas,
decision making is hard, and we need facts as well as values, what does that
tell us about how to approach the GM debate?
Cartwright : We know some of things people worry about are motives,
institutional structure, economic structure is the genetically modified food
the actual stuff thats likely to be developed given were doing
these tests here - thats likely to be developed in the reasonably near
future. Is it going to be used to make a lot of supermarket stock holders
very rich or is it actually going to get to the people for whom it might
help agriculturally is that actually going to get to people whom it
might help in such a way that it will help them, what foods are involved
the facts that might make a difference to us neednt be ones
couched in what sounds like moral vocabulary to begin with.
Dilnot : Unless were simply going to say NEVER,
believing that no GM development could ever meet out ethical concerns, and
have benefits that outweighed the risks even if extensive research had
demonstrated no ill effects, we have to inform ourselves, and recognise that
the debate is difficult. And one particular area of difficulty is precisely
why GM crops are being developed. To paraphrase Nancy Cartwright, is it to
generate profit, or to feed the hungry? Professor Brian Wynne.
Wynne : People have noticed the inconsistency, lets say, between
the sound bite sales pitch for GM foods which is feed the starving and the
actual trajectories of innovation which have, in fact, been invested in,
in the first phase of GM crops and food which have been terminator technology
in other words the technology that doesnt allow farmers to sow
seed which theyve collected from this years crop because the line is
discontinued by GM techniques. So, terminator technology is one which
is about controlling the food chain its got nothing at all to
do with feeding the starving and the inconsistency between the sales pitch
for GMs and the actual trajectories of innovation which people have
encountered is one of the big reasons why people are actually reacting in
a negative fashion to GM crops and foods. We find them incessively asking
whats driving this, whats the purpose behind it, why are we doing
this?
Dunwell : I think theres no doubt the first GM transgenic products
on the market were those that were driven by very strong commercial pressures
and, of course, the commercial world had to recoup its investment and
investment in research is expensive. The major commercial targets came out
first and theyre the ones that are on the market now and the
sorts of herbicide resistants, insect resistants that you know about.
Dilnot : GM scientist, Professor Jim Dunwell. And if more herbicide
resistant crops, supplied by the makers of the herbicide are all thats
on offer its hardly surprising there isnt much enthusiasm for GM food.
Then the only defence for them would seem to be that these developments might
lead to others that really could have an impact for good where its
most needed.
Dunwell : It is a tool that plant breeders, hopefully, will be able
to add so if you want to improve in the vitamin level or you want to improve
the levels of iron in basic food stuffs. Millions of people suffer from anaemia
and a lot of that is because of low iron in the diet. A large proportion
of pregnancies fail because of that type of anaemia. So, I think people in
those countries have a responsibility to their populations to use the
technologies to the best advantage of their own country. And I think some
of them look at the criticism applied from the more developed world as something
thats a fairly patronising view to the extent that we dont need
it therefore we would like to paralyse the whole scientific advances that
are possible. As a scientist, I would like to see the technology applied
where there is a clear benefit. Its not going to be the long term panacea
to the economic ails of sub-Sahara in Africa. I think everybody knows that
and nobody should exaggerate the potential but likewise they shouldnt
remove the potential.
Dilnot : We cant ignore this. There is the potential for real
and substantial improvement in the lives, diet and health of many millions
of people. But those gains are not yet even close to being realised, and
theres little incentive for private industry to invest in the technologies
that would address the needs of the poor south as opposed to the rich north.
Heres a very clear question of values. If its right to seek to
produce GM crops that will help the hungry in the developing world, governments
and international organisations will have to contribute to the cost
blaming private industry for not doing it is simply passing the buck. But
there are those, notably Peter Melchett of Greenpeace, who think there is
a still better way.
Melchett : There are solutions working now using sustainable agriculture
and low input agriculture, there is a wealth of research, a wealth of market
knowledge and it is being opposed. Its being opposed by the genetic
engineering lobby and industry who say no, dont worry about all
of that, dont put money into that that is much to complicated,
its much too diverse, its much too complex for a simple, single
top down solution which is what I want lets introduce this new
technology, it will go everywhere, well control it, well make
sure it works. And thats an anti-progress approach.
Dilnot : And what about the accusations that its fine for rich
people living in the western world to think, rather beautifully, about former
pastoral scenes but actually those scenes often have very high infant mortality
rates, a high incidents of poverty, malnutrition and that it may well be
very much the quickest and most effective way of helping be to use some of
this technology. Dont you think that we should at least accept that
we might be being a little bit sentimental?
Melchett : Well Im not and I know very few environmentalists
who are. I mean yes, of course, agricultural systems in the past were horrific.
The conditions in which people worked and lived were appalling and indefensible
nobody wants to turn the clock back and the idea that anyone wants
to turn the clock back is just nonsense and its absurd and inaccurate
propaganda.
Dilnot : But there are plenty of people who disagree with Peter Melchett,
who look at the massive growth in world food production in recent decades
the so- called green revolution and point out that this has
flowed not from organic farming, but from use of new technology. They argue
that we need more technological progress, not less. Robert May.
May : The difference in life expectancy between the developed and
the developing world has shortened from a disgraceful 26 years to a still
shameful 12 years, largely as a result of the better nutrition that comes
from the green revolution along with other scientific advances. We need a
doubly green revolution that further increases food production but does so
in a way that works with nature instead of using fossil fuel energy subsidised
fertilisers, chemicals, pesticides to do things and we really need
that. There are those who would say let us try and work with organic farm
methods that, in principle, maybe could be that efficient and that friendly.
It would be nice if that were so, it needs more work, it certainly did not
deliver the increase in food production we currently have and theres
a very sad paradox at the heart of much of the current discussion because
I think the praiseworthy aims of the organic farming movement, for example,
which I completely resonate with - theyre the first and the most to
be able to benefit from the proper and target and sensible use of GM techniques
to produce the kind of crops they want. What my vision of the future is a
vision that is a greener future a future that realises the dreams
and aspirations of the environmental movement, that is sustainable, but this
technology is going to be the way to do it - not pie in the sky.
Dilnot : So can we really have our organic cake and eat GM too? That
seems unlikely to take off, at least in Britain. But insufficient and inadequate
diet is a huge problem in many countries and for millions of people. GM crops
really might make a difference here. And for that to happen we need governments
in rich countries like ours to pay for science thats targeted at helping
the worlds poor, not simply making money for the worlds rich.