Science of Life
Genetic Modification
Deadly or Desirable?
Senior lecturer Dr Kim Johnson from La Trobe University in the School of Life Sciences stated, “There is no evidence of genetic modification being harmful” and suggests that crops cannot adapt to climate change without technological help.
A study conducted by scientists from International Maize and Wheat Improvement discovered that drought-tolerant maize could, without any additional costs, provide households in Zimbabwe with an extra nine months’ worth of food. In the study, farming families who grew drought-tolerant maize were able to harvest 617 kilograms of maize per hectare more than those who did not. 617 kilograms per hectare is equal to 240USD per hectare of extra income to these families and is worth the additional food security of 9 months. This would substantially improve food security in many countries in the African continent and other developing countries.
The Global Usage of Water - Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications states that ‘water scarcity represents the most severe constraint to agriculture, accounting for about 70 percent of potential yield losses worldwide’. As represented in the figure above, agricultural practices account for most of the global water use. Progressively resorting to drought-tolerant crop varieties through genetic engineering would reduce high water consumption rates in the world and satisfy global demands. Developing these drought-tolerant crops will require the introduction of a range of genetic determinants to regular crops, as well as the examination of tolerance in each species. However, key challenges in genetically modifying crops is the cost and complications in getting approval for field trials as well as the repercussions received by the public.
A reason that scientists are unable to obtain approval for field trials is that some genetically modified species involve genes that cause them to become resistant to specific antibiotics. Such genes may be added to distinguish the difference between genetically modified and non-genetically modified plants. Theoretically, these antibiotic-resistant genes could be transmitted to bacteria inside a human or animal gastrointestinal tract when a genetically modified plant is consumed. The bacteria could potentially develop resistance to the antibiotic and therefore, there is a chance that the antibiotic will become ineffective in treating humans with a bacterial infection.
Genetically modified plant testing - Source: GM Watch
The Pros and Cons of Genetic Modification
Below is a concise list of all the "Pros and Cons" of genetic modification. Whilst it is not all-inclusive and there are other benefits and unfavorable aspects of genetic engineering, this list compares the main points for each side.
Pros of Genetic Modification
Increases nutritional worth in crops
Increases a crop’s resistance to diseases
Crops become more adaptable to climate change
Increases yields for farmers
Better quality food and lower costs for consumers
Cons of Genetic Modification
May cause antibacterial resistance
Not accepted by the public
Badly modified crops can contain toxins and have done in the past
They may cause allergic reactions in people who do not normally react to a certain food
How Should We Fix Society's Problems with Genetic Modification?
Assistant Professor of the Philosophy of Science at Tilburg University Dr Stefaan Blancke and Postdoctoral of Philosophy Researcher of Saint Louis University Dr Johan de Smedt’s paper on the “Evolutionary and cognitive foundations of pseudosciences” discusses the cognitive bias and psychological essentialism existing in the human mind. Their paper suggests that the mind naturally holds intuitive beliefs in high regard and rejects scientific information, and this may be the reason for why the concept of genetic modification is not well respected by some parts of society.
Society has deemed genetically modified organisms (GMOs) ‘poisonous’ and damaging to the environment. Ironically, they have proven to be safe and environmentally beneficial. Dr Blancke proposes two main causes for this: the source of the genetic code and intuition. GMOs provoke disgust in people because they view them as contaminating, as the introduced DNA is obtained from cockroaches, rats, and other species that are considered disgusting. Religion and society’s intuitions surrounding nature also play a role in the trust of GMOs. Biotechnologists continue to be accused of ‘playing God’ and are told that genetic engineering is ‘unnatural’ and many believe that nature is the ‘vital force’ that humans cannot interfere with.
In a Scientific American article, Dr Blancke proposes that the right solution is to educate the future generations at a young age. As stated in his paper, facts will not persuade the public, however educating children without a developed stance on the issue will reduce the negative feedback in future years. A productive solution would be running programs in developing countries, correcting misconceptions about genetic modification, and focusing on the benefits that it provides for our society. These benefits include an improvement in soil fertility and structure, increase in virus and drought tolerance, reduction in vitamin A deficiency, which therefore results in a higher income for farming communities as they no longer need to spend on pesticides and more land to keep up with high food demands.