When I purchased this book, I was fully expecting a conversation on the ethics of genetic engineering and various biotechnologies. I figured it would broach topics such as where the stopping point was in between acceptable things like gene therapy and unacceptable things like genetically modifying entire human embryos. As a scientist, researcher, and graduate student who works with genetics in my lab, such considerations would be valuable to me and my studies, yet this book does not go there. Instead, it provides a sharp criticism of any form of genetic modification from a severely scientifically uneducated standpoint, often confusing or incorrectly stating information. While I must take into consideration that this book is from 2002 and has more of a focus on the societal aspects, I cannot excuse their blatant picking-and-choosing mindset, not to mention use of theological and artistic materials as their source of morals.
I wholly understand and agree that governmental and industrial parties affect scientific outcomes, often promoting discoveries and products that provide financial gain without caring about the long term consequences. Although money/cost is inevitably an aspect of science, just as everything else, putting such harsh views towards progress in the name of commenting on the economic scene is counterproductive. On that same note, strictly criticizing without properly acknowledging the other side is also wasteful. If the argument is strong enough, such things would not cause your ideas to crumble. While things like modifying food might alter nutritional or ecological roles of plants, they should also mention how modifying has a role in preserving species during times of devastating disease (ex: bananas) or allowing people in severely impoverished areas to meet their minimum nutritional needs (ex: GM plants that produce higher yields, resistant against pests without the use of harmful chemicals, potatoes with added vitamins to fight undernutrition). Instead, the authors state that any party claiming modified organisms would reduce world hunger are being deceitful, since in the past we could feed our populations without such tools, of course, avoiding the fact that our population is growing and drought associated with climate change is reducing crop yield (1). Most scientific sources admit the need for further studies to determine the benefit/risk of GMOs, while industry tends to ignore such need for consideration. The authors of this book do not discuss any of these points, which personally leaves me with many unsupported arguments and feels quite frustrating. I am not fully on the side of GMOs for everything, but I also cannot support this book with such one-sided arguments.
Similarly, medical interventions are significantly ignored. While ethical debates regarding lifespan and modifying embryos are brought up, they are poorly explained and immediately compared to eugenics and benefit for capital. While corporations do exploit the sick and poor, this does not negate the genuine need for continued research in medicine, as although we are already more advanced medically than any previous generation, we still have many gaps and need solutions for conditions that were fatal only a few years back. Not to mention, we have recently seen the rise of our first fungal disease emerging from climate change (Candida auris), and with shifts in weather patterns and temperature, vector-borne diseases are increasing and moving (2). The authors also like to continuously talk of various side effects of using modified organisms, not just in a medical sense, yet they do not realize many of our therapies today often stop one problem yet cause another. This is not a critique of medicine, but rather the tenet Western medicine often runs on– “this pill will prevent you from dying but you’ll have XYZ side effects from it”. There are no medications that suddenly resolve your problems without risk of causing another, to varying degrees of course. The authors in many senses do not consider the risk-benefit of genetic modification. Recently I read a study (honestly, more of a case study) that used genetic modification for sickle cell disease and β-thalassemia patients, and while there were some severe after-effects, they resolved and the patients are now able to function without the need for regular blood transfusions nor have severe symptoms (3). Feel free to read that paper, you can see just how difficult symptom management was for the patients and might begin to understand why someone would be receptive of gene therapy. Essentially, you can’t write a book on genetic modification and skip over the part about novel therapeutics that can help many people, just because it doesn’t align with your argument.
The book also got so close to hitting the mark when it discussed ecological concerns and farming ethics, yet still missed the point. They spend much time discussing potential effects of using GM crops, but negate any good they share by wrongly making statements such as “To compare a toxin-producing transgenic plant to even another insecticide is a false analogy. While they may both have the potential for ecological disturbance, an insecticide does not have the same potential for long-term disruptive genomic and reproductive consequences,” (page 92). I agree that we must show extreme caution when using modified organisms in the environment, but to casually state that a GM plant has more dastardly consequences than an insecticide shows the authors’ lack of research on the matter. They do not even hold a middle ground nor discuss both sides to this. We have seen time and time again how various chemicals can be spread out via run-off water, move their way through entire ecosystems, kill off keystone species, and cause intense environmental disruption (4). Similarly, many insecticides are known carcinogens, and can disrupt our DNA, causing cancers and potentially other serious conditions. Making such a statement without further explanation backed by evidence is a continuous theme in this book. Where I agreed with them and was quite disappointed by how little they discussed on the matter were the actions by corporations such as Monsanto. This is a place they really could have shone, seeing as large companies have time and time again used GM and any legal tactics they could to put more money in their pockets, regardless of environmental or ethical concerns. A deep dive into the actions of corporations and what we could feasibly do in opposition would have been more reasonable and practical.
On that note, the actions suggested by the authors’ are of questionable ethics at best and illegal at worst. While they stress not doing anything rash, such as arson, they do recommend what they call “pranks” such as releasing mutant flies into biotech facilities to disturb those working there, as well as local places, like restaurants, in order to “gain support” by disturbing patrons and increasing local tension, convincing them that GMOs are bad. Yet, for authors so concerned about the impact of modified organisms on the environment, this is disregarded without sources since the flies’ odds at survival are no better and “their recessive characteristics are not likely to be selected for.” I ask, how do you know? A recessive trait is not necessarily equivalent to poorer fitness. While I generally agree that such flies probably would not cause major disturbances, I find it ironic that the authors use such broad, unfounded arguments to discredit the majority of GMOs, yet they are so quick to disregard their own words for the sake of “pranks,” as they call it.
My read was wholly unenjoyable, and due to such I often started and stopped it due to sheer frustration. I believe this book has taken close to three months to digest fully, and it was a lesson in why research and science communication is crucial. While some aspects of the book were outdated, and those parts I decided not to comment on, others simply had to be in jest, possibly for artistic purpose, as I cannot believe sentient human beings actually thought and maintain these reasonings. I truly hope that wherever these authors are today, they have further educated themselves, and maybe, just maybe, they could write a second part with updated information and less pandering.
Happy reading,
-Beppa
References
- Kogan, F., Guo, W., & Yang, W. (2019). Drought and food security prediction from NOAA new generation of operational satellites. In Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk (Vol. 10, Issue 1, pp. 651–666). Informa UK Limited. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2018.1541257
- Rokas, A. (2022). Evolution of the human pathogenic lifestyle in fungi. In Nature Microbiology (Vol. 7, Issue 5, pp. 607–619). Springer Science and Business Media LLC. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-022-01112-0
- Frangoul, H., Altshuler, D., Cappellini, M. D., Chen, Y.-S., Domm, J., Eustace, B. K., Foell, J., de la Fuente, J., Grupp, S., Handgretinger, R., Ho, T. W., Kattamis, A., Kernytsky, A., Lekstrom-Himes, J., Li, A. M., Locatelli, F., Mapara, M. Y., de Montalembert, M., Rondelli, D., … Corbacioglu, S. (2021). CRISPR-Cas9 Gene Editing for Sickle Cell Disease and β-Thalassemia. In New England Journal of Medicine (Vol. 384, Issue 3, pp. 252–260). Massachusetts Medical Society. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2031054
- Grier, J. W. (1982). Ban of DDT and Subsequent Recovery of Reproduction in Bald Eagles. In Science (Vol. 218, Issue 4578, pp. 1232–1235). American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7146905