Michael Brooks

Here comes the science bit

Battle of the wheatfield

Rational discussion of genetically modified crops is beyond us

By Michael Brooks Published 02 May 2012 14:47

An ultralight helicopter hovers above a field where Greenpeace activists wrote the message 'NO GMO'. Photograph: Getty Images.

Let me say from the outset, I think the experiment at Rothamsted should go ahead without interference from campaigners opposed to the genetic modification of crops. But I doubt it will.

The experiment looks at whether wheat could repel aphids by expressing genes that give off a “panic” pheromone that aphids use to warn of danger. These genes, which have been synthesised from chemicals in a lab, have been woven into the wheat’s genome.

It’s a brilliant strategy, well worth trying. If it works, you wouldn’t need to spray this wheat with insecticides. However, this very sensible experiment is under attack.

Anti-GM campaigners have announced they will arrive en masse to destroy the experiment on May 27th. The scientists have released a video pleading with the protestors not to trample years of their work. It’s unlikely to have any traction, though. This isn’t personal; it’s simply that GM scientists have not yet earned the right to do their research uncontested.

In many people’s minds, science is still scary – especially when it tinkers with nature. Watch this one-minute of video about Rachel Carson’s call for a ban on DDT in 1963, and see if the scientist doesn’t make you shiver a little bit.

This is still the tone many people hear when they hear scientists talking. People are, in general, all in favour of the products of science. But they also know there’s no such thing as a free lunch. Advances and comforts come at a cost – and people want to know what the cost might be before they give unqualified support to a programme of research.

That leaves scientists with two choices. They either try to win a battle for hearts and minds before they press ahead with experiments – those who mix human and animal biology are engaged with this right now. The alternative is to ignore public concerns, raise private funding and do semi-secret experiments, then present the public with a fait accompli that they like – such as Louise Brown, the world’s first test tube baby.

It seems to be too late for GM researchers to do either. The battle for hearts and minds is already lost: there is a pervasive belief that, without extreme caution, genetic modifications are likely to spread beyond experimental boundaries and might have unintended adverse effects on natural ecosystems. And Monsanto scuppered any future acceptance of the private route by their early attempts to create themselves a lucrative market at the expense of farmers in the developing world.

We have never managed to hold a properly informed public discussion about genetically modified organisms, and thanks to the subject’s history, that discussion might now be impossible. Which means extremist anti-GM groups will continue to thwart even the most laudable scientific efforts while the public shrugs and wonders if that isn’t the best thing for everyone in the long run.

Tags: science nature

More from Michael Brooks

View the discussion thread.

20 comments

Tue, 2012-05-08 17:08 — Biologist (not verified)

This article does not include any rational scientific debate regarding the major concerns of GMO research. To paint the picture of activists as extremists who do not believe in modern science is as much obnoxious as it is ignorant. To rationally debate the merit of GMO crops, one needs to discuss the real science behind, together with the motivations of getting such products onto the food market. First, contrary to most peoples beliefs, over 80 % of the world's GMO crops currently growing are not designed to increase their nutritional status, increase yields or reduce herbicide use. The most common GMO crop, originally made by Monsanto, is designed to be tolerant to their herbicide - Roundup. What this means is that the crops can be sprayed by unlimited amounts of this chemical, and still not die (while weeds and everything else will die of course). So, as a consequence, fields are now being sprayed by increasing amounts of chemicals, which is then present in our food and livestock feed. This herbicide has been shown in numerous independent lab studies, clinician reports as well as studies by Monsanto themselves (!!!) to cause birth defects, cancers and reproductive problems, allergies, respiratory disease as well as skin problems. IF YOU WANT A RATIONAL SCIENTIFIC DEBATE, these findings are ALL PUBLICLY AVAILABLE. In most regulatory contexts, products are not released onto the public until there has been sufficient PROOF of their safety. Instead, products are approved based on UNPUBLISHED data by Industry. Some data produced by Monsanto has been retrieved through court orders and re-analysed by independent scientists and have shown harm of their products. It is not the activists who are irrational, it is the industry and the regulatory agencies with which they share jobs whose judgements are clouded by profit to put it kindly. As far as environmental damage is concerned, leaching these chemicals into the ground has consequences for soil biology and animals. Many studies show toxicity of Roundup to animals and soil, as well as crop health. Furthermore, plants are now becoming resistant to the herbicide, as are insects becoming resistant to Bt GMO crops that produce an insecticide to kill pests such as the corn rootworm. These strategies are based on short-term interests and are not able to deal with the long term effects of evolution that will inevitably outwit such simple strategies.

I am a biologist, and I understand that many scientists put as much faith in science is one would with religion, but I have not met a scientist yet, who has not been persuaded about the dangers and crude science of GMO technologies once some RATIONAL thought has gone into it.

MICHAEL BROOKS - I am waiting for your rational and science-based argument in support of GMO crops. Until then, a debate is pretty pointless.

Wed, 2012-05-09 20:50 — jankaas (not verified)

so just to make sure i get your point correctly; it's not the GM crops themselves but the chemicals that you say currently accompany their cultivation.

have i got that right?

Thu, 2012-05-10 10:56 — Biologist (not verified)

Yes, this is correct, but the herbicide is not the only problem. With the herbicide (Roundup) resistant crops, the herbicide appears toxic, but also the herbicide is actually a metal chelator, and therefore immobilises nutrients in the crops which makes them mineral-deficient. This is thought to underlie some problems recently seen in livestock who have reproductive problems. A large proportion of European livestock are fed GM crops.

In addition, other GM crops such as those engineered to produce insecticidal Bt toxins are also toxic to animals and have been associated with bloating, stomach problems, allergies, immune responses and even anecdotal evidence of deaths of farm animals. Environmental problems are also associated with them, such as effects on other insects such as beneficial insects such as ladybirds. Pests are also becoming resistant to these too, with american GM corn fields suffering from crop failure as a result. Evolution finds a way (as seen in Jurassic park!! LOL).

If industry are so proud of their products, why don't they publish their studies showing how wonderful they are? We are still waiting! People may pick holes in papers that show adverse effects of GM technologies, but we do not have the luxury of scrutinising the studies industry did to get their products approved, as they were not published.

Fri, 2012-05-11 10:37 — jankaas (not verified)

thanks for clearing up that GM crops are not the problem, but rather the issue is one of associated chemical use. i personally see the Bio-technology as a potential positive, not a negative by definition. the real problem as you appear to outline is one of Big Industry. the fact they exploit for financial gain, and in doing so poison the soil, is hardly surprising though. i remain of the opinion that GM is just more of the same genetic engineering farmers have used throughout human history. would you agree with that?

Tue, 2012-05-08 17:28 — Biologist (not verified)

Some scientific articles showing harm of herbicide Monsanto's Roundup) that is used in conjunction with the most common GMO crop:
http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20695457
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22200534
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22337346
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12148884

Clinical report of harm to health of residents living in and around GM crop farms in Argentina where much of the EU's animal feed comes from:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Pesticide_illnesses_and_GM_soya.php

There are many more papers. If these are the effects of the GM crops currently out there, can you still claim that is is irrational to be suspicious of new products? We as consumers, and most fundamentally as living beings, deserve choice over the foods we eat, and to protect ourselves from inadequately tested chemicals, whether sprayed onto plants, or even plants engineered to produce their own chemicals - as is the case with this new trial described in the article. There is sufficient evidence to show that we are playing with nature that we do not fully understand, and for a reason that us completely unnecessary. We do not need the trials and we do not want to risk these GM plants spreading into the wild.

Tue, 2012-05-08 17:28 — Biologist (not verified)

Tue, 2012-05-08 17:27 — Biologist (not verified)

Tue, 2012-05-08 14:39 — Ngwenya (not verified)

@ Gerald Harbison: no, that's not quite true. Large swathes of the world have issues with GM - as is so often the case, it's the US that's into exceptionalism.
@ Dark heart - you are so right. In my experience, people are not so much afraid of scientists as they are of the people who fund them. Which is why we should find ways of publicly funding important work.

Thu, 2012-05-03 13:07 — gf (not verified)

Its not an ultralight helicopter, its a gyroplane, and gyroplanes can't hover!

Wed, 2012-05-02 17:32 — Gerard Harbison (not verified)

Very UK-centric piece, I'm afraid. GMOs are non-controversial in the US. The field next to me has been planted with GM-maize/soybeans on a two year rotation at least as long as I've lived here (12 years) . I'm grateful, because the alternative would be atrazine seeping into my well.

How long will British public opinion continue to ignore years of real-world experience with large-scale GMO planting in the US?

Wed, 2012-05-02 17:32 — Gerard Harbison (not verified)

How long will British public opinion continue to ignore years of real-world experience with large-scale GMO planting in the US?

Wed, 2012-05-02 17:31 — Socrates11 (not verified)

Unfortunately the inability to trust official channels of information leaves no option for the skeptical, informed public but one of concern. From the technologies very inception in 1996 environmental consequences were disregarded. With the rapacious nature of capitalism in full swing it is difficult to see this situation changing for the ethical any time soon.

Wed, 2012-05-02 17:31 — Socrates11 (not verified)

Wed, 2012-05-02 17:30 — Socrates11 (not verified)

Wed, 2012-05-02 17:27 — Socrates11 (not verified)

Wed, 2012-05-02 16:54 — Dark Heart of Toryland (not verified)

A lot of the problem is the widespread - and entirely credible - perception that GMOs are being developed not for the benefit of mankind, but rather for the benefit of Agribusiness. Given the highly questionable and monopolistic practices of rapacious corporations such as Monsanto, is it surprising that people are suspicious?