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

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

Introduction The word biotechnology is a synthesis of two words, really; biology and technology. As defined by Websters 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, lets look at the two sides of the coin. We will begin with the positive aspects of biotechnology.

Page 2 of 10

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

Page 3 of 10

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

Page 4 of 10

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

Page 5 of 10

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

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 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.

Page 6 of 10

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

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 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 wont 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 Page 7 of 10

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

hope that scientists will join in the effort, and devote as much 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

Page 8 of 10

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

Bioethics). Whatever ones judgment, biotechnology is here to stay and will continue to have far-reaching effects on our lives. 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 selfdestruction. We also have, I believe, the means for passing through this stage of technological adolescence into a longlived, 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 Brocas Brain).

Page 9 of 10

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

Works Cited

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 Brocas 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.

Page 10 of 10