Conscious Choice: Biotech Bias

November 2000 | Citizen at Large

Biotech Bias

by Jay Walljasper

Sitting down with the newspaper or browsing the web, I instinctively turn away from news about genetic engineering, cloning, and other high-tech messing with the basics of life. An immediate sense of dread sets in as soon as I spot such a story, so I jump to the report on Etruscan archeological findings at the bottom of the page or rev up the search engines to see what news I can find about Bossa Nova music, although a sense of duty eventually summons me back to read — uneasily — about the latest biological breakthroughs.

Thinking over the health, environmental, and moral risks posed by these brave new technologies makes me queasy. But that’s only half the reason for my aversion. I’ve come to realize that most media coverage of the issue leaves me sputtering with rage at the way biotech opponents are dismissed as cranks, even in articles chronicling their growing influence. News reporters, business analysts, and science correspondents trumpet the message that genetic engineering is our best, truest, and maybe only hope for curing disease and feeding the world, and that anyone who voices doubts about these technologies stands in the way of human progress.

That’s when I crumple up the newspaper or hiss at the computer screen, my mind reeling with all the questions they fail to ask. How can we be so certain these technologies are our best bet for human improvement? Who’s to say that the billions of public and private money spent on biotech experiments might not bring far richer results if invested in environmental clean-ups and sustainable agriculture?

And how can we be so certain genetic engineering and cloning are safe? What about the assurances that DDT was perfectly harmless? And thalidomide? A century ago automobiles were hailed as the solution to our most pressing urban pollution problem: horse manure. Who could have known then that a proliferation of cars would lead to smog, ozone alerts, and an ominous warming of the earth’s atmosphere — not to mention tens of thousands of traffic fatalities a year, and plug-ugly parking lots dominating the American landscape? How do we know that cloned piglets and genetically-altered corn won’t lead us toward similarly unforeseen calamities?

If genetically engineered food is so unquestionably superior to what humans have been eating for the last thousand generations, why does the biotech industry fight so strenuously to make sure their products won’t be labeled as such? With labeling, you and I and our fellow grocery shoppers — exercising our basic rights in this much-heralded era of consumer choice — could make up our own minds about whether biotech is better. In Europe, where labeling is often required, it’s clear that most people aren’t so sure that genetic meddling with their dinner constitutes the kind of progress they want to buy. One of England’s biggest grocery chains, Sainsbury’s, has recently banned foods with genetically-modified ingredients from its shelves. And increasing numbers of North Americans are not convinced that the future being cooked up for us inside high-tech laboratories and corporate marketing offices represents any sort of real gain for most of the people living on this planet.

It could turn out that the scientific establishment and the media have it completely backwards. As we continue to evolve as a civilization, staunch defenders of genetic engineering may ultimately be seen as standing in the way of progress while protesters in butterfly costumes and wary shoppers seeking untainted food will be recognized as our best hope for improving the lot of humanity. The ultimate result of our modern, technological society could be a world where people make the decisions about issues that affect their lives.

In the past, progress may have meant accepting any and all new inventions handed down to us. While technological feats — from A-bombs to e-mail — have been hallmarks of our era, the real thrust of modern civilization is broader. The advance of environmental protection, human rights, women’s consciousness, access to information, consumer selection, and global interaction are as important to the evolution of our civilization as high tech wonders. Progress is coming to mean something more that just what’s shiny and new — it also implies an opportunity to participate in the creation of the future, exercising options about what we want and don’t want based on what we value. If most people feel that the risks — including the social, moral, and aesthetic consequences — outweigh the benefits, then genetic engineering and cloning should not be declared progress — no matter what the corporate lobbyists, agribusiness publicists, and the media tell us.

Recommend this page to a friend

Top Ten pages recommended to friends: