Thomas M. Zinnen
Stigmatization of biotechnology's safety has caused a curious twist in public
policy, says Mark Cantley of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development. Scientifically, it's safe--that is, as safe as other genetic
manipulations. But opinion polls indicate the public does not perceive it as
safe. One response is to erect special regulations intended to reassure the
public. This causes Cantley's Curious Twist: the new regulations are
intended to protect biotechnology from the public, rather than their proper
role of protecting the public from biotechnology.
Cantley's comments concluded the Third International Symposium on the
Biosafety Results of Field Tests of Genetically Modified Plants and
Microorganisms held November 13-16, 1994 in Monterey, California.
Cantley points out another problem with such 'reassurance regulations.' The
public reacts more to the message sent by government action than the one sent
by government statements. The actions say "special biotech regulations are
needed because biotechnology poses special risks" while the statements are
"we conclude based on the scientific evidence that biotechnology poses no
special risks." Mixed messages confuse the public, undermine rational and
science-based regulation, and choke off public access to the benefits of safe
and effective biotechnologies.
Issues of safety challenge teachers and policy makers in several ways:
- Defining safety
- Distinguishing between safety and the feeling of safety
- Accommodating people with profound concerns unfounded by the available data
- Clarifying criteria for assessing safety
- Assessing public policies that would generally prohibit or specifically penalize the commercialization of safe and effective products.
There's another specific challenge for teachers. Biotechnology is often cited
as a vehicle for teaching about the role of ethics, morality and social
obligation in science. While student interest and the availability of case
studies makes biotechnology a good vehicle, it is not--and should not be
presented as--the sole technology infused with such issues. Clearly
biotechnology regulation is a case study for developing critical thinking in
students, but to focus all "Science in Society" issues on biotechnology falsely
implies that those issues are unique to biotechnology.
Assessing the safety of the field release of transgenic plants and microbes is a
contentious task entangling principles of science, the pragmatism of
commerce, and the politics of government. Napoleon is credited with saying
that "laws should be equitable, just, and understandable to all." I wonder if
such principles are expected of public policy regulating agricultural
Being understandable to all requires being clear in the criteria used to define
and assess safety. "Safety has at least two components," notes Paul Thompson
of Texas A&M University. "One is the risk measurable by experiments. The
other is the public's feeling of safety." While scientists focus on the first,
policy makers usually also consider the second. Accommodating profound
concerns unfounded by the data taxes the wisdom of public officials and
requires the vigilance of scientists to ensure that concerns about the feeling of
safety are not confused with the actual assessment of risk.
A simple and clear statement of the criteria of safety of transgenic organisms
in agricultural biotechnology has yet to be produced by the US government,
and waiting for one would require Jobian patience and an expectation of life-long
frustration. Such clarity is unlikely--all the more reason for cultivating
scientific literacy in students and the public.
Mark Cantley notes the scientific community has repeatedly concluded
"there is no scientific basis to justify specific regulations for recombinant
DNA applications." While this is not to argue that specific regulations should
never be applied in response to local political concerns, but "don't delude
yourself that you need to do so based on the scientific evidence," warns
Cantley. Such unfounded stigmas can damage the public good by "impeding
the flow of ideas, of technologies and of trade," Cantley adds.
Cantley cited as an example of the stigmatization Article 19.3 of the
Biodiversity Treaty, which characterizes biotechnology as a specific threat to
biodiversity. In 1992 the Bush administration objected to the treaty's
treatment of biotechnology. The Clinton administration will have to resolve
these issues as the treaty is implemented.
If one accepts the conclusion that recombinant DNA poses no special risks is
accepted, then the criteria one would use to evaluate the risk of products of
recombinant DNA should be the same criteria used to evaluate products of
traditional & familiar genetic modifications. The feeling of safety may not be
the same, but the risk assessment principles would be the same. Even if those
principles are not clearly stated, one can ask a critical question: are transgenic
organisms tested with the same scrutiny as other genetically modified
organisms. If not, why not?
An increase in the number of field tests worldwide, and a spate of new
products clearing the final hurdles to commercialization in the US, has
spiked interest in improving public understanding of biotechnology in the
hope of increasing public acceptance of biotechnology products.
Clearly public understanding will not of itself cause public acceptance.
Acceptance is a function of both information and values, so an improved
understanding of the science will not necessarily change values. People
choose to reject a new technology for several reasons, including
misinformation leading to misconceptions, as well as well-informed people
rejecting a tool because the tool is inconsistent with their values. To some
people new technologies such as recombinant DNA are taboo. Taboos are
real, can be profound, but are capricious and not bounded by reason. One is
left asking if taboos are sound principles on which to base public policies that
restrict liberty or demand compulsory action against a person's will.
Common sense tells me that an informed public is less likely to reject
biotechnology products because of misconceptions. An involved public is
less likely to reject biotechnology products because of a feeling of exclusion
from the process of assessing safety. An informed public is also more likely
to participate effectively in the debate. Effectively addressing safety issues
and regulations is a key component of that debate.