SUMMARY OF ENGINEERING GENESIS
Finding a Balance Amid the Controversy
Amidst all the recent controversy over developments in non-human biotechnology, how do we find a balanced and informed view? A group of distinguished experts in genetics, agriculture, animal welfare, ethics, theology, sociology and risk presents the important findings of the recent book "Engineering Genesis", based on a unique 5 year study of the Society, Religion and Technology Project of the Church of Scotland. The study breaks significant new ground in the way it bridges the worlds of science and ethics, bringing together geneticists such as Ian Wilmut, leader of the team which cloned Dolly the sheep and Mike Wilson, one of Scotland's top researchers in genetically modified crops, with leading thinkers in ethics, sociology, animal welfare and risk. This very special blend of expertise and insight seeks a balance between different viewpoints.
The book explores whether we are playing God with nature; whether genetically modified crops and foods will "feed the world" or just boost the profits of a few transnational corporations; how precautionary we should be about the risks; what is the point of cloning sheep, cows and mice; the pros and cons of animal genetic engineering for human medical benefit; who and what is really driving the development of genetic engineering; and what say the public have in all this. Here are a few of our findings.
Genetic Engineering is not wrong, but ....
It not so much that genetic engineering crosses some forbidden line, as that it affects patterns and relationships in the natural world that we still only partially understand. It is a reductionist approach to biology, its strength is in varying single effects, and its weakness is the difficulty in relating individual changes to the whole organism, or to overall ecological complexity in nature. In the givenness of the created order, there is a wisdom we do well to respect. Wider relationships matter as much as the single effect desired by the scientist.
Genetically Modified Food and Risk
Environmental and safety concerns have been much exaggerated in the media, but there are serious questions to be addressed especially in assessing the increasingly complex long term ecological relationships. The precautionary principle should be the basis, but calls for a general moratorium on genetically modified food are not supported. Three years more research would not magically solve all such complex questions, nor reflect that not all applications raise the same degree of risk. A balance needs to be struck between a due concern for possible dangers which in hindsight were obvious, and an aversion to risk that demands minimising every conceivable hazard, no matter how tiny the probability. It seems appropriate at present to concentrate on applications that are restricted in scale, and which confer strong human or ecological benefits.
A Lack of Public Accountability
Many people object to the genetic modification of food, for religious, environmental or other deep-seated reasons. Food is so basic to us that it is a simple matter of justice to require mandatory labelling and segregation of all foodstuffs whose production has involved genetic modification, not merely where "foreign" DNA can be detected. UK and EU regulations show serious flaws in this respect, and are symptomatic of a deep and disturbing lack of public accountability in the way which developments are being driven and controlled. What is really driving the breakneck pace of developments? The introduction of unsegregated unlabelled genetically modified soya and maize into Europe was an abuse of power, where commercial and political pressures carried more weight than the concerns of the people. It is no longer enough to make far reaching decisions in the secrecy of commercial organisations or government departments, or by the whims of individual pressure groups. From now on there must be a true and wider public participation. To restore public confidence in the decision making system, a standing ethical commission on non-human biotechnology is urgently needed, but its work must be fully open to public scrutiny and involvement.
Genetically Modified Animals - How far can we go?
Few animal welfare issues are raised which were not already raised by selective breeding, but some major ethical questions are raised about novel ways of intervening in animals which genetic engineering is now making possible. While few problems are raised by producing pharmaceuticals in sheep's milk, the use of pig organs in humans (xenotransplantation) and genetically induced cancerous mice (oncomice) present dilemmas about how far we are justified in intervening in our fellow creatures for human benefit.
Pigs Hearts in Humans?
Xenotransplantation marks a change in how we relate to animals, but the "yuk factor" at the idea of having a live animal organ in one's body conveys deeper issues than mere unfamiliarity. Some of see mixing organs between species as denying the sanctity of both human and non-human life and an excessively instrumental use of the animal. Others argue that this intervention may be justified if it offered very significant and long lasting improvement for most patients. The same applies to inducing cancer genetically in mice as models of human disease. The graveness of human cancer may be a sufficient reason, but we question how far realistic medical benefits are being fairly assessed against the animal suffering involved. The "3 R's" principle of reduction, replacement and refinement of animal use seems compromised by the rapidly increasing scale of use of genetically modified mice models. Are mice are being reduced to mere items in a research catalogue?
Cloning Animals?
Animal cloning has been overlooked in the speculation about human use of nuclear transfer technology. For some, cloning mammals would violate a biological distinction in reproduction, and were it to be routinely used in farm animals, it would bring factory production concepts one step too far into animal husbandry. The use of the technology at Roslin to improve methods of genetic manipulation of farm animals for specialist applications are more acceptable ethically, although welfare questions relating to pregnancy difficulties remain need to be resolved.
The Social Dimension - Who is in Control?
The study is unique in its emphasis on the social dimension of genetic engineering and what drives both its supporters and opponents, and who are its winners as well as losers. We found an excessive emphasis on a scientific, rationalist tradition which tends to dismiss public reactions and expressions of intrinsic ethical values as "emotional and irrational". This covers up the fact that scientists and legislators are just as likely to be influenced by their basic beliefs as those who object. Many objections arise not out of ignorance but deeply held values, and may be just as rational as the enthusiasm of the proponents. At present, genetic modification is the subject of deep distrust. For it to have a future, much depends on how trustworthy the public perceive its advocates to be, what are their governing motivations, and how humble they are in their claims.
Return to the top of the Page
Engineering Genesis Preview Page
Return to SRT Home Page
