the pros and cons of biotechnology

Bio 25, Biology and Society, Long Beach City College, Spring 1999, Instructor Dr. Jeanne Bohm

By James R. Walker

The Pros and Cons

of

Biotechnology

Long Beach City College, Spring 1999

Bio 25, Biology and Society

Instructor Dr. Jeanne Bohm

By James R. Walker


By James R. Walker

Introduction

The word biotechnology is a synthesis of two words, really; biology and

technology. As defined by Webster’s unabridged 1979 edition of the dictionary biology

is: (Gr. bios, life and logos, description) the science of life; the branch of science which

investigates the phenomena of animals and plants with regard to their morphology,

physiology, origin, development, distribution, habits etc...: it includes botany, zoology

and their subdivisions. Technology is defined as (techne’, art and logos, description) the

study of practical or industrial arts, applied science. So when we put the two root words

together biotechnology means the practical or industrial application of biology with the

unstated premise being to satisfy human intentions and desires.

This short treatise will discuss the pros and cons of biotechnology. Before we dive

right into the arguments for both sides I think it best to address the unstated premise i.e.

satisfying human intentions and desires. It is here we must stop and ask ourselves what

are the intentions and are they necessarily best for the entire ecosystem we call earth? It is

true that both camps, pro and con, would indubitably maintain that their appeal is best for

earth. However, we must examine all human interventions into the natural order of things

and ask have they produced far reaching and rippling effects beneficial to everything else

on the planet? I think looking at our history will answer this question. I will leave the

reader to ruminate on this thought in his or her own time meanwhile, let’s look at the two

sides of the coin. We will begin with the positive aspects of biotechnology.

of 10


By James R. Walker

Biotechnology pros

If we look around us, it is clear that technology is here to stay. Our culture is utterly

dependent on various aspects of it. We could not get through our day without technology.

From clocks to microwaves to transportation systems to VCR’s, our lives are inherently

tied up with technology.

Biotechnology in particular has greatly increased, for many, the quality of life.

We live in greater comfort in various climates. We have abundant food and clean water

supplies, our health has improved and longevity increased. Many diseases now have

treatment or cures and vaccines make us immune to some diseases. Advancements in

biotechnology have increased crop yields, fattened our cattle, identified genes responsible

for various maladies and hints at gene therapy to rectify these maladies. It has enabled us

to create an oil gobbling bacteria to assist us in oil spill clean ups and fabrics which are

antifungal and antibacterial (in Scientific American). For the first time in human history

humankind is wielding and manipulating the very foundations of life itself. It promises a

future in which we are in control of the essence of life to such a degree that we can now

orchestrate evolution itself, specifically human evolution.

Through genetic testing and screening we can determine the health of a baby

while still developing in the womb (amniocentisis), and ascertain the genetic

predisposition for certain diseases and conditions not only of the fetus but of adults as

well (in Exploding the Gene Myth). Cures or therapy for genetic ills are imminent. As

Aaron Wildavsky writes:

of 10


By James R. Walker

That honor goes to molecular genetic engineering, which uses recombinant DNA techniques to

transfer specific genes within and across species. What is more, subject to some limitations, genes

may be mutated, rearranged, or produced synthetically and then inserted into the desired host (in

Public Policy).

These accomplishments and masteries constitute a force unprecedented in the history of

the earth, and bears a hope for a future filled with well-being. At long last that terrible

image we all have in the back of our minds, of our predecessors crouched in a cold cave,

sickly, hungry and frightened, can be put to rest forever.

What is the cost of such control? This we will explore in the next section, the cons of

biotechnology.

Biotechnology cons

Food production in America has increased many fold largely due to

biotechnological innovations. Agribusiness raises livestock and crops which produce

more food using various chemicals, steroids and genetic engineering. We are beginning

to feel the backlash of these innovations. In spite of this, corporate agribusiness proclaims

America has the safest, cheapest and most plentiful supply of food in the world.

However, the proliferation of huge factory farms and feed lots spreads blight.

Michael W. Fox has a Ph.D. in medicine and a D.Sc. in ethology/animal behavior

both from London University. Regarding the adversities of using biochemical means to

increase food production he writes:

Can you believe a livestock industry and their technical experts who see nothing wrong with

feeding antibiotics every day to farm animals, knowing the grave risks of antibiotic-resistant

of 10


By James R. Walker

bacteria to the consumer public? Agribusiness claims antibiotics are necessary in order to reduce

consumers’ and farmers’ costs because sick animals are less productive and grow slowly,

However, antibiotic—resistant infections are increasing at an alarming rate among humans,

especially among infants, the elderly and those with compromised immune systems (in Eating

with Conscience).

Furthermore, Fox is alarmed by the increasing rate of genetically engineered food and

governmental polices regarding this and asks:

Would you trust any government that refuses to enforce labeling of genetically engineered food

and denies consumers the right to know if any food they buy is not natural? The United States

Federal Drug Administration has refused to enforce such labeling.’ (in Eating with Conscience).

These corporations are producing “designer foods’, composed of synthetic ingredients

and manipulated DNA without fully investigating the environmental and health

ramifications. By manipulating gene pools we are shrinking diversity. Diversity of gene

pools within species insures survival of that species by allowing enough allele variation

which may be more able to cope with changes in environment and parasitic pathogens.

Many crops have such a narrow gene pool that they are totally dependent on human

intervention and maintenance.

We depend heavily on chemical fertilizers and pesticides for our cornucopia but

the run-off of these pollutes our ground water, lakes and streams. Although the United

States addresses this issue with the Clean Water Act, there are serious concerns over lack

of enforcement (in Eating with Conscience). Not only is genetic information used in plant

and animal husbandry, it is used in the realm of human development as well.

The multi-billion dollar Human Genome Initiative is a huge research project to

map every gene on the DNA of a prototypical human being. Grandiose promises of

of 10


By James R. Walker

therapeutic benefits are supposed from the project. “They point instead to the real threats

to privacy and civil liberties already resulting from the unregulated increase in genetic

predictions”, states Ruth Hubbard professor of biology emeritus at Harvard University (in

Exploding the Gene Myth). Genetic predictions, whether they involve testing or

screening, are based on the assumption that there is a relatively straightforward

relationship between genes and traits. However, genetic conditions involve a largely

unpredictable interplay of many factors and processes. To quote the authors of a popular

genetics textbook An Introduction to Genetic Analysis:

A gene dose not determine a phenotype (noticeable trait) by acting alone; it does so only in

conjunction with other genes and with the environment. Although geneticists do routinely ascribe

a particular phenotype to an allele of a gene they have identified, we must remember that this is

merely a convenient kind of jargon designed to facilitate genetic analysis. This jargon arises from

the ability of geneticists to isolate individual components of a biological process and to study them

as part of genetic dissection. Although this logical isolation is an essential aspect of genetics, a

gene cannot act by itself.

Even genes that implicated in conditions whose inheritance follows a regular and

predictable pattern are proving to be far from simple to define and localize. For example,

the gene associated with Huntington disease, which is thought to lie on chromosome 4,

has so far resisted precise localization or analysis. In fact, some scientists are beginning

to wonder whether DNA in more than one region of this chromosome may be involved

(in Exploding the Gene Myth). Discrimination may arise from such predictive genetic

screening.

The for-profit health insurance industry raises this issue by several notches.

Insurance companies make money only so long as people pay more to buy health

of 10


By James R. Walker

insurance than it costs the insurance company when these people feel so ill that they

consult a physician. So, to make a healthy profit, insurance companies should sell most of

their insurance to people who won’t get sick. Not only will this not cure or prevent the

conditions, it will create a new group of stigmatized people, the “asymptomatic” or

“healthy ill’ who, though they have no symptoms, are considered likely to have a

particular disability at some point in the future. Job applicants may experience similar

screening as well.

As always, the discriminatory potential will not be felt equally in all applicants. A

highly skilled person with unique qualifications will be less likely to be screened out than

a applicant for a more routine job, for which many others could be hired. So here as

elsewhere, the least powerful segments of society are most likely to be exposed to

discrimination.

We need strong laws at the federal level to control genetic discrimination in

employment and insurance. Scientists involved in predictive genetics and the Human

Genome Project have promised that genetic predictions will improve preventive measures

and so make us healthier. However, if insurance companies can use results of genetic

tests to limit or deny coverage, such predictions will have the opposite effect. Without

coverage, people will have less access to preventive care, thus will be more likely to

become ill and less able to get appropriate medical treatments. Since much of the

scientific research that can lead to genetic discrimination is being done in this country,

Americans have a special responsibility to develop ways to counteract this insidious new

form of discrimination. I hope that scientists will join in the effort, and devote as much

of 10


By James R. Walker

energy to preventing genetic discrimination as they do to developing the technologies that

make such discrimination possible.

Humans have always found ways to intervene in nature. The ability to make a fire

and the invention of the wheel had profound impacts on the development of human

society. The domestication of plants and animals allowed humans to live in ways

unthought-of before. The rise of modern science and the industrial revolution stand as

markers of yet another major change in our way of life.

Our current technological revolution presents further opportunities and capacities

for intervening in life on both the micro and macro levels. The technologies surrounding

conception and birth, such as in vitro fertilization and amniocentisis, help determine

when we will be born and what some of our qualities may (or may not) be. Developments

in genetics led to production of new grains that produce more bushels per acre. An oil

eating bacterium has been manufactured to help clean up oil spills. And while a totally

implantable artificial heart is not yet a reality, various assist devices are available to serve

as a transition technology. The Human Genome Project will give us a map of the genetic

structure of the human body and serve as a basis for new approaches to treating genetic

diseases and defects. Hardly an area of our lives is not touched by biotechnology. But the

record of technology is certainly a mixed one. Clearly biotechnology has brought

benefits. But serious issues of privacy and confidentiality are being raised because of the

vast amounts of information about individuals being collected and stored. In addition,

many wonder whether such technologies reduce people to commodities (in An

Introduction to Bioethics). Whatever one’s judgment, biotechnology is here to stay and

will continue to have far-reaching effects on our lives.

of 10


By James R. Walker

I will end this discourse with a quote from the late great Carl Sagan:

We are at a crossroads in human history. Never before has there been a moment so simultaneously

perilous and promising. We are the first species to have taken our evolution into our own hands.

For the first time we possess the means for intentional or inadvertent self—destruction. We also

have, I believe, the means for passing through this stage of technological adolescence into a long-

lived, rich and fulfilling maturity for all the members of our species. But there is not much time to

determine to which fork of the road we are committing our children and our future (in Broca’s

Brain).

Works Cited

of 10


By James R. Walker

Fox, Michael W. Eating with Conscience. Oregon: New Sage Press, (1997).

Hubbard, Ruth and Wald, Elijah. Exploding the Gene Myth. Boston: Beacon Press,

(1993).

Sagan, Carl Broca’s Brain. New York: Ballantine Books, (1997).

Shannon, Thomas A. Introduction to Bioethics. New Jersey: Paulist Press, (1997).

Siegel, Richard W. “Creating Nanophase Materials.” Scientific American volume 275,

number 6, (1996).

Suzuki, David T., Griffiths, Anthony J.F., Miller, Jeffrey, and Lewontin, Richard C.

Introduction to Genetic Analysis. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company, (1989).

Wildavsky, Aaron Public Policy. Class handout.

of 10

the pros and cons of biotechnology

Documents

genetically engineered food

human genome project

genetic analysis

instructor dr

genetic predictions

jeanne bohm

unstated premise

gene myth