There is a gross generalization that people (especially independents) often make out of politics: both sides are full of [insert negative property here.] You know, both are full of corruption, extremism, bull-headedness, you name it. I don't think that this overly symmetric view of politics is terribly accurate, but it persists. Often, however, it is true, though usually in a lop-sided sense. One such example is in science and technology.
On the political right, there are a great many Luddites. Let us consider opposition to stem cell research, the teaching of evolution and other natural historical sciences, and action on global warming, just to name a few. Sadly, the political left has its own problematic instances of resistance to scientific progress, opposition to nuclear energy and genetic engineering of useful organisms.
Since I am a biologist and not a nuclear engineer, I will focus on the genetic modification issue. Still, I will briefly explain my position on nuclear power. As we try to find ways to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions, there is an existing technology that can be used to reduce the need for coal-fired plants. Nuclear energy, while not truly being carbon free, produces far less carbon dioxide than coal and gas. Why not use it?
After all, there have been great strides taken in improving the safety of the technology. When it was first implemented, I do not think that the technology was really ready for prime time, but experience and improved understanding have made the technology very safe. The waste will remain a problem for the time being, but I think that if we tried, we could find a safe solution for it, either by using it as another source of energy (it is radioactively hot, after all) or finding somewhere safe to discard it.
The technology that I really wish to talk about, though, is genetic modification. This week, I attended the joint meeting of the Southern Forest Tree Improvement and the Western Forest Genetics Association called "Tree Improvement In North America: Past, Present, Future." I'm just a graduate student, and I didn't have anything ready to present, but I attended a great many talks on the technologies around tree breeding (yes, people breed trees, typically to improve yield and quality of timber) ecological genetics, and population genetics.
First, allow me to mention a few things about the conference. Global climate change was a huge, huge topic there. Foresters are scrambling to understand how they have to change their management strategies in a changing landscape. There are many questions about how well existing forests will survive the changes and more importantly, how well new forests can be established both naturally and in plantations. I'm a geneticist, not a forester, so while I found the topic interesting, it was a bit over my head.
Also, foresters tend to be a politically independent lot, especially for scientists. Most scientists are urban dwellers and are staunchly liberal if they have a political bend. Forest scientists are typically rural people, though, and their point of view is tempered in that way. Many of them were pretty much libertarian in perspective. I heard over and over a distaste for Bush. One fellow said he voted for him but is regretful of his vote. Another said he donated money to the Democrats, something he never dreamed he'd do.
Let's return to genetic engineering. Just to make sure that we are all on the same page, when I say genetic engineering, I am talking about using molecular biology to add or remove genetic material from an organism. In some areas of agriculture, this has been done. Typically, genes for resistance are discovered, transfered into the species, and then bred into a line or population of the organism. Some traits, like yield, are much harder to improve this way, because they have a plethora of genes involved in their expression.
In plants, the kingdom in which I work, insertion of genes is done in two different ways, depending on which one has been shown to work better in the organism of interest. One way is through agrobacteria, an organism that in nature causes a disease called crown gall. This ingenious little bacteria inserts a set of genes into its host plant so that it forms a tumor in which the bacteria can happily live. We have been able to use this mechanism to insert genes of our choice into plants. The other method is a machine called the gene gun. It is literally a firearm converted to propelling millions of tiny metal beads coated with genetic material into plant tissue. Some of the genetic material is taken up by the organism.
Now, one must keep in mind that almost all of our food comes from plants and animals that have been bred over the millenia to suit our needs and make our lives better. In the 1800's and 1900's, breeding became a science, increasing the effect that it had on developing better and better crops. Actually, it wasn't just improving the crops, it was keeping them out of the grips of disease and pests, which are constantly evolving to overcome our supplies. City dwellers often don't realize that our farmers have to occasionally update their seed source through purchasing new seed from various entities, both public and private. They do this just to keep from losing yield to pests and disease that have overcome existing resistance. This part has had nothing to do with genetic engineering in the past. It was straight-forward classical breeding.
Genetic modification has the potential to speed up the breeding process. Instead of having to hunt down some individual that might carry a gene of interest and then breeding it in and backcrossing to the more productive parent, we can simply take that gene... and it doesn't even have to be from the same species or even kingdom of life. It really doesn't even have to be from the same domain!
Genetic modification also allows us to do things that have never been within our reach or have been exceedingly difficult to do. For example, some work has been done on engineering trees to take up heavy metals from the soil and sequester them, meaning that the tree is acting as a clean-up machine. When it's done, one can use or discard the lumber, and you have a cleaner site. Other work is being done to return endangered species, such as the American Chestnut.
One of the last talks at the meeting I attended was given by a fellow named Robert Kellison, President Emeritus of the Institute of Forest Biotechnology. In it, he talked about opposition to genetic modification of plants. He broke opposition down into three different groups. The first group is made up of reasonable people who want to be sure that our use of genetic modification is wise. They raise legitimate concerns about how we use the technology. For example, in the South, sweetgum is a tree that could have some potential for being a timber tree. It grows to be quite large, it has a wide variety of environments in which it is happy, and it is resistant to disease and insects. One could insert a RoundUp-Ready gene so that all weeds could be controlled around the plantation. However, sweetgum is somewhat weedy itself, and eventually it would spread its herbicide-proof nature to wild sweetgums. Now, you have a bad weed. As Dr. Kellison said, "We don't want another kudzu." Essentially, this first group does not oppose the technology, but they do want us to use it in a wise way. This is reasonable.
The second group that he talked about is religious in nature. They worry that since God made plants as they are, our tinkering with them is an abomination. While I have never talked to such people, Dr. Kellison said that they are very open to conversation, and that common ground may be reached.
The third group is the one that we on the left are guilty of harboring. In his speech, Dr. Kellison said that he once attended a large meeting where a woman from a group called Earth Justice or something like that gave a speech. In it, she said a lot of things that Dr. Kellison, having spent a lifetime in breeding and eventually molecular biology, had never heard of. He decided to try to meet her and have a discussion. He tried contacting her a few times, saying that he knew that they had different points of view on the topic, but he wanted to better understand hers. She eventually declined, saying that their opinions were too far apart and that it would be a waste of time.
We on the left pride ourselves in being passionate but rational. We take great pride in looking at the facts, as best as we can discern them, and then coming to conclusions that are just, compassionate, and progressive. In my education as a biologist and plant scientist, I have seen the evidence for the potentials of genetic engineering, and I have seen the challenges that await plant breeders in the years to come. It saddens me that many of my fellow liberals and progressives would oppose this technology that has the potential to improve yield (lowering the amount of cropland needed and freeing more for nature,) lower our pesticide and fungicide use, and help to keep us prepared to feed, clothe, and house ourselves for the turbulent future.
I know that a lot of you are seething with anger at me for attacking a sacred cow, but please consider that we need not be Luddites like we find on the right. We can be the reasonable ones, ever pushing mankind forward in technology and science.