Hmm. That ole debbil Frankenfood. Here's a cute little bit of scientific
wisdom I belatedly stumbled over at
http://abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s54399.htm
an interview with Dr Alan Kerr by Oz science broadcaster Robyn Williams.
================
In
Australia, Bt cotton is by far the most
widely grown genetically engineered
crop. Where grown, it has reduced
the use of insecticide by half. In
America, it has reduced insecticide
use on cotton by about 90%.
This surely is a significant benefit to
the environment. So why is the green
movement, particularly Greenpeace
and the Australian Conservation
Foundation, so adamantly opposed to
this new technology? I wish I knew. I
can understand them having
reservations about some specific cases
of genetically engineered crops but to
reject everything holus bolus is
beyond my comprehension. As more
and more genetically engineered
crops are released, the use of
insecticides and fungicides in
Australia and elsewhere will be
dramatically reduced. Herbicide use
will probably rise but soil erosion will
be controlled. Surely this is a net
benefit to the environment. The final
last gasp argument by the greenies is
that there should be a moratorium for
at least five years until it can be
proved beyond doubt that genetically
engineered crops cause no damage to
humans or to the environment. This
is mere humbug. Everyone knows, or
should know, that scientifically, you
cannot prove a negative. You can
show that the probability is very low
but that will not satisfy the critics. I
sense that it is more than opposition
to genetic engineering. It is an
anti-science movement. It is
interesting to listen to discussions on
genetically engineered crops. Almost
inevitably, three points will be raised:
1) mad cow disease in Britain, 2) the
Chernobyl disaster, and 3), more
recently, the dioxin contamination of
chicken feed in Belgium. None of
these has anything to do with genetic
engineering.
There are some aspects of science
that concern me. A recent book by
Damien Broderick called 'The Last
Mortal Generation' scared me witless.
His thesis is that within a generation
or two, science will have conquered
death and that humans will become
immortal. Have you ever thought of
the consequences to society and the
environment of such an achievement?
If you're anything like me, there
might be a few sleepless nights ahead
of you. Why don't the greenies get
stuck into this potentially horrifying
area of science, instead of attacking
genetic engineering with all its
promise for agriculture and the
environment?
Robyn Williams: A challenge from Dr
Alan Kerr, Professor Emeritus of Plant
Pathology at the University of
Adelaide, and winner of the first ever
Australia Prize, back in 1990.
===================================
Damien Broderick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:02:18 MDT