Thanks to Bart Hall for another thoughtful and provocative post. I agree
with his important assertions in the first few paragraphs. "Just saying
no" to biotech is not an option nor a course of action for society that is
defensible. I paraphrase below the question he has posed to the list, and
then I add a relevant follow-on question --
Bart asks -- "Are you categorically opposed to all applications of
biotechnology?"
My answer -- no.
My follow-on question I pose to everyone who answers Bart's question with
a "No" is --
"What applications of biotechnology in agriculture and food production do
you think might be worth the cost of developing them and the costs of
dealing with whatever risks and uncertainties their use entails?"
In my recent AAAS paper I address both applications that in my judgement
are not defensible or sustainable (most of the technologies on the market
now), as well as those that seem to offer promise of "good things" at an
affordable price. I have argued before on this and other lists that the
"moral authority" (and ultimately, credibility) of biotech analysts --
whether in most respects supporters or critics -- will be a function of, or
linked to the thoughtfulness of the criteria they use to judge the
"goodness/badness" of a biotech application, and how open-mindedly and
honestly they are willing to apply those criteria in all cases, letting the
chips fall where they may. And so, I want to thank Bart for asking the
question and urge several people to be thinking about how they would answer
it. I suspect that many of us are actually more interested in the "first
principles" that people rely on in answering the question than in people's
judgements on a particular application -- so feel free to just address
decision criteria and principles if that feels more comfortable.
For my "list," read the section "Promising Applications of Genomics and
Biotechnology in Food and Fiber Production" (pages 3-13) in the paper
accessible in PDF format at --
http://www.biotech-info.net/AAASgen.pdf
The electronically enhanced version is in html and has live links to
abstracts or full text of most references, for those that want to dive
deeper into the applications I discuss. It is at --
http://www.biotech-info.net/AAASgen.html
I look forward to other people's lists and further discussion on this
important challenge.
And while I am at it, I also want to express my personal view that
everyone and all organizations working on biotech issues should denounce
acts of ecoterrorism that damage other people's property and threaten harm
to living things. Street theater, civil disobedience, the Baking Brigade
and all other forms of creative and peaceful protest are fine and very much
needed, but as a community, we must now speak out loud and clear that
violence is where the line must be drawn.
chuck
Charles Benbrook CU FQPA site www.ecologic-ipm.com
Benbrook Consulting Services Ag BioTech InfoNet www.biotech-info.net
5085 Upper Pack River Road IPM site www.pmac.net
Sandpoint, Idaho 83864
208-263-5236 (Voice) 208-263-7342 (Fax)
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 12 2000 - 14:00:30 EST