Principles of Plant Genetics and Breeding

264 CHAPTER 15
information to be available. One set pertains to the
values we attribute to things and acts we perform, the
other set being value-free. Scientists, traditionally, generate
value-free information. However, both kinds of
information (tested empirically and experientially) and
their impact need to be accumulated for use in making
choices and decisions about biotechnology.
The ethical issues and the passion with which they are
debated in the public arena vary among applications.
Manipulation of the food chain seems to attract more
attention than clinical applications (e.g., xenografts).
For example, heart valves from pigs have been used in
humans without fanfare. However, genetically modified
(GM) grains have encountered considerable public
opposition from certain quarters. In general, the ethical
issues of concern to the public are the impacts of
biotechnology on human health and safety, environmental
impacts, intrusions into the natural order, invasion
of privacy, issues of rights and justice, economics,
and others. It is important that both the benefits and
risks of biotechnology be considered in making ethical
decisions about the discipline.
The problem is that, at the moment, we are limited
in our knowledge about the full benefits and risks
of biotechnology. Consequently, we are in danger of
either underestimating or overestimating the potential
of biotechnology for good or evil. Further, public reaction
may be rooted in undue fear or hope stemming
from misunderstanding, misinformation, or lack of
information about various aspects of the genetic manipulation
of plants.
New technologies often tend to tip the scales in favor
of those with resources to acquire them. They are most
likely to be adopted if they increase profitability to producers
while lowering the cost to consumers. There is
also the issue of the developing countries. Many of the
germplasm resources used in plant and animal improvement
are derived from these regions of the world. The
debate over patenting biological material is often linked
to this fact.
Risk analysis of biotechnology
Risk analysis of biotechnology is complicated by the
fact the activity is unique for the crop species, the
genetic modification, and the production environment.
A more useful and fair analysis of the impact of biotechnology
would be obtained if risk analysis of a biotech
product were done in comparison with competing
products or technologies. Examples of fair analysis
would be to compare chemical pesticides with Bacillus
thuringiensis (Bt) products; the use of glyphosate herbicide
with glyphosate-resistant crops, compared with the
use of the herbicide atrazine or other weed management
methods; or planting GM crops with high productivity
compared to clearing new land to plant conventional
lower productivity cultivars. In conducting risk assessment,
it is important that the process enhances consumer
confidence and trust, without which marketing
GM products is bound to be problematic. In part, public
perceptions and attitudes about biotechnology are
shaped by concerns about the risks and safety (acceptability
of risk) of genetically engineered foods and other
products. These biotechnology products are perceived
as posing risks to a variety of social and personal values.
An expert panel on the future of food biotechnology
commissioned by the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency and Environment Canada categorized the values
that are perceived by the public as being placed at risk by
biotechnology into three categories:
1 Potential risks to the health of human beings, animals,
and natural environment. The risks to human
health and the environment are at the top of the list of
public concerns about the impact of biotechnology
on society.
2 Potential risks to social, political, and economic
relationships and values. Commonly, the public is
concerned about the monopoly of certain industries
(e.g., seed) by multinational corporations to the
detriment of small producers and the risk or increased
dependency of developing economies on these
monopolies. It is the opinion of many experts that the
level of risk acceptable by the public depends on the
overriding benefits to be achieved (risk–cost benefit).
3 Potential risks to fundamental philosophical, religious,
or metaphysical values held by different
individuals and groups. This category addresses the
issue the public takes with the process of biotechnology
rather than the product or impacts. The concern
is the risk of playing God by implementing processes
that are unnatural to alter nature.
The extent to which the public is willing to be
exposed to unknown or uncertain risks, and how much
risk is acceptable, is influenced by social, economic,
and philosophical factors. People will be more willing,
for example, to accept a higher risk level if they are
strongly convinced about the benefits of adoption of
biotechnology products, or, on the other hand, the
adverse consequences of not adopting biotechnology
products.