Biotechnology: Bad Technology?

Debates over genetically modified (GM) organisms usually involve airy conjectures, obfuscating scientific terms or ecological theories and excessive rhetoric about human hunger or the importance of uncontaminated nature. In the last month, however, all of the airy conjectures solidified into one intricate, international mess that provided us with an early warning of the dangerous potential of GM organisms not only to our natural environment, but also to our economic world.

In September, GM corn was discovered in tacos sold in the United States. The strain of corn, known as StarLink, has been altered so that it can "naturally" produce a toxin for corn borers, one of the more significant pests that plague corn crops. The pesticide produced by the artificially enhanced corn, however, is not quite as harmless to human health as initially predicted: the transplanted gene also codes for a human allergen. Recognizing the uncertainty, if not the danger, involved with this GM organism, the U.S. government revoked the right of Aventis--the company that produces StarLink--to plant the seeds once the strain was detected in the food supply.

Despite these restrictions, last month corn exported from the United States to Japan and meant for human and livestock consumption was also found to include some of the StarLink strain. Even without the danger of an adverse reaction in humans, the unexpected occurrence of modified genomes is an enormous ecological problem. Yet this time, because of the suspected threat to human health, the matter was significantly more than "theoretically" wrong. Despite a ban on the use of a GM organism in the United States, a possible health threat found its way into the food supply of another country from American imports.

The controversy generated by the discovery of the genetically modified corn put both the Japanese and American governments under enormous market pressure to tighten controls on GM organisms. Japan needs 16 million tons of corn a year to satisfy demand, and imports 95 percent of its supply from the United States. With the emergence of genetically modified genes in American grain, Japanese companies were extremely reluctant to buy American corn. In protest of shoddy export controls, Japanese companies boycotted American corn until the American government promised more effective inspection techniques.

In addition to the host of valid ecological and ethical objections to modifying other organisms, this case also points out some of the unacceptable technological flaws with biotechnology. Technologies whose side effects cannot be completely controlled fail to meet all of the purposes for which they were created, and therefore are insufficient. When a Pentium chip, for example, makes a mistake every million calculations, it's immediately recalled because its effects are unpredictable.

Yet with Starlink, the effects are greater than any computer chip mixup. Upon close scrutiny, though, this episode corroborates the view that GM biotechnology fails in both its short term and long term goals. In the short term, apart from the fact that the allergens were not supposed to be in the food in the first place, their presence defeats any notions of increased agricultural productivity. Anyone who's ever suffered from a food allergy will agree that they'd prefer to have less food than something that will send them into shock.

A one-time threat to public health is terrible; a cyclic recurrence would be far worse. Yet this is just what we face, since the modification of any genome is irreversible. Apart from the fact that GM foods can threaten our health, there exists a greater danger that such genes can never be "recalled." Once a gene is released into the environment, human control over it diminishes greatly. If our scientific assessments on the safety of our technology are wrong--and the StarLink case proves that such things do happen--then there can be no effective, corrective action. Even if the government revokes Aventis' right to plant corn because it causes allergies, the gene can pop up "unexpectedly" throughout the environment over a number of growing seasons. Our loss of long-term manipulative ability is another sign of the insufficiency of modified genomes, and should also encourage us to reject its use as a technology.

Biotechnology is touted as a saving grace of our weird and wired world because it uses "nature" to further human ends. We can grow more "productive" corn, or "cooler" tobacco that glows in the dark. Yet our faith in technological progress should not stop us from relentlessly challenging our motivations and our ends. What are the ends of more "productive" corn and "cooler" tobacco? Are the means we're implementing the most effective ones? And, lest we forget, is the biotechnological innovation a good technology, or is it insufficient? Not only are GM organisms ethically and environmentally questionable, they're also technologically unsound. The only question that can really be conclusively answered when it comes to GM organisms is whether we should use them. Unequivocally, the answer is no. There are too many uncertainties involved.

Rohan R. Gulrajani '02 is an engineering concentrator in Leverett House. His column appears on alternate Mondays.