Module IV: Biotechnology and Biosafety

Faculty members defined biotechnology as new techniques from cellular and molecular biology designed to improve the genetic makeup and agronomic management of crops and animals, or to develop new drugs, vaccines, and therapies. Module IV devoted most of its time to agricultural biotechnology. Transitions in the world of agriculture have been driven by scientific advances, expansion of markets (regionally and globally), an increase in private sector activity, and concerns over the sustainability of food supplies and agricultural practices.

China was given as an example of a country that has been active in exploring the possibilities of biotechnology. Chinese scientists have, for example, developed an insect-resistant cotton from public funds, and it, along with similar products introduced by Monsanto, has been in great demand among farmers. The Chinese strategy was to limit Monsanto’s product to two provinces, learning from the farmers’ experiences there and reserving the rest of the market for Chinese products. The strategy has enabled China to compete effectively in biotechnology, at least within its own borders, while engaging selectively in international trade; in order to enter the international arena fully, strong intellectual property rights (IPR) protections and biosafety measures are necessary.

Cuba is another example of a country that has been highly successful in biotechnology, and under some extraordinarily adverse conditions. Despite the continued US embargo and the loss of external support following the breakup of the Soviet Union, Cuba has become one of the world’s leaders in medicinal biotechnology. Cuban scientists have produced vaccines for dengue fever, hepatitis B, and meningitis B, and developed promising antibody therapies to fight cancer. Cuba’s biotechnology industry is now worth hundreds of millions of dollars per year and its products collectively rank among the country’s top exports.

Clearly, there are lucrative markets for the products of biotechnology, and opportunities even for developing countries to become involved and reap the benefits. At the same time, the prospect of genetic engineering--whether applied to crops, livestock, medicine, or human beings--triggers a range of ethical, environmental, health, and safety concerns that must be addressed.

Farmers have always been eager to take advantage of new crop varieties that improve yields. Faculty asserted that in order to import new wheat seeds during the "green revolution," the first thing India had to put in place was "fences and police," because of the intensity of demand among farmers. Similarly, many farmers are interested in acquiring genetically modified seeds that promise to make their work easier and more profitable.

However, demand is tempered by concerns over the type of modifications that are made. The now-infamous "terminator" gene developed (and eventually abandoned) by Monsanto caused a public outcry, for several reasons. The terminator gene renders seeds sterile, so that farmers need to buy new seeds each planting season. While some farmers wanted the seeds anyway, feeling that the advantages outweighed the disadvantages, others objected to the enforced dependence on the seed company. Additionally, farmers and the general public raised concerns over "gene flow," i.e., that the terminator gene could be unintentionally passed on to other crops, with potentially disastrous results.

Training course participants discussed these and other potential concerns over GM foods, including the potential negative effects on ecosystems, human health, and crop diversity. With regard to concerns raised about displacement of traditional crops, participants were somewhat divided. Some emphasized that consumer preference would ultimately decide, and that only inferior crops would be displaced. Others stressed that food tradition is extremely important in Africa, to the extent that many people will go hungry if their preferred choice of food is unavailable, rather than settle for available alternatives, because of culturally derived preferences or taboos.

Much discussion also centered on pest resistance. Some participants expressed concern over the effect on ecosystems, i.e., if hungry insects are no longer interested in pest-resistant crops, they are likely to turn to something else instead--something we cannot predict. The food chain--both upwards and downwards--might be affected in undesirable ways. In addition, the inherent usefulness of breeding for pest resistance was questioned: a narrow focus on repelling successful pests is likely to result only in previously less successful pests rising to occupy that environmental niche, while a broader resistance may repel even beneficial insects. Insects are notoriously adaptable creatures, so that genetic manipulation may not ultimately reduce dependence on chemical pesticides in any event. Finally, some participants raised the fear that in-bred pest resistance might also be toxic to humans in the long term.

Some of the more pro-GM faculty members argued that most of the public’s concerns were a result of ignorance, and that foods have been genetically modified for some ten thousand years through traditional breeding techniques, and that the only difference is that genetic engineering allows for more precise alterations. Other faculty members and participants stressed that there were important differences, such as the introduction of genes from other species and indeed from other kingdoms, e.g., the use of animal genes to modify plants. Consensus emerged that the safety of GM foods should not be taken for granted, and that safety measures should be implemented. A point of debate that persists is whether the burden of proof should be on the public, to show that a GM product is harmful, or on the firm, to show conclusively that it is safe. Other questions include how much risk is acceptable, and what are the risks of not employing biotechnology? Risk management and risk communication are subjects beyond the immediate scope of the training course, but it is clear they are integral to the process of public debate and the definition of the terms on which biotechnology will ultimately be accepted or rejected.