Can GE be sustainable?

The Economist recently held an online debate on the motion: This house believes that biotechnology and sustainable agriculture are complementary, not contradictory. Long story short, the debate was disappointing – I think because the subject wasn’t very well defined*. Both proponents and opponents in the comments and in the official statements had off topic ideas, depending on how they framed the assertion. It’s really a shame because this could have been an opportunity to really discuss how we can forge a new agriculture that is less harmful for the environment.

The discussion really needs to include proponents of and experts in genetic engineering, plant breeding, agronomy like Pamela Ronald and Sir Gordon Conway, proponents of and experts in sustainable agriculture, like Matt Liebman and Charles Benbrook, and perhaps most importantly everyday people. If we’re really committed to moving towards a better agriculture for everyone, we need to get past labels, get past ideology, and cooperate.

Biofortified was designed to be a place where we can have that discussion, but just like the Economist debate, discussion here can easily get derailed with ideas that are important but not directly related to the topic at hand. The off topic discussion can be really interesting, but decreases the likelihood that we’ll reach any agreement on the main topic. I wonder if reframing of a subject with a slightly more narrow focus would help. In the case of the motion proposed by the Economist, I’d break it into two separate assertions that can be debated separately:

1. Biotechnology as it is currently deployed and sustainable agriculture are complementary, not contradictory.
2. Biotechnology in some potential applications and sustainable agriculture are complementary, not contradictory.

Speaking for science

Rachel Carson was undoubtedly a force for good in the 1960s. She singlehandedly started the environmental movement by calling attention to the dangers of unregulated pesticide use. As a graduate of the University of Maryland College Park, I especially appreciate Carson’s work in the Chesapeake Bay.
Kate Neville, in The Science Creative Quarterly, calls for scientists today to do as Rachel Carson did. She enthusiastically concludes:

We should take from Rachel Carson the hope that her actions conveyed: that great change can come through research, that people do want to know more, and that narrative can bridge the gap. We need not all take on a public role to engage in this process: Carson’s influence came from her ability to synthesize work across many fields, which relied on the willingness of many researchers to take the time and effort to share their findings with her, and explain the significance and the debates. We must support our public intellectuals – question their conclusions, but champion their causes; critique their claims, but provide them with alternative information. We need to communicate our research more clearly, participate in dialogue and explanation, and engage with the issues of our time in collaborative, constructive, critical, and public ways. We have the potential to effect great change, even in the most improbable of cases, and even on the most intractable of problems.

I couldn’t agree more. That’s why I’m blogging, after all. I share Kate’s optimism, believing that the best way to make our world better is through new collaborations and communication that defies traditional boundaries.
Unfortunately, it seems that the movement started by Rachel Carson has forgotten the science their mentor championed and succumbed to pessimism. A few weeks ago, I flipped through Courage for the Earth: Writers, Scientists, and Activists Celebrate the Life and Writing of Rachel Carson. Many of the essays are appropriate, but some go too far, essentially saying that we should stop many types of research in medicine and agriculture.
Rachel Carson, herself a scientist, conducted a a cost-benefit analysis. She saw that the costs of pesticide overuse and industrial pollution outweighed the benefits, and acted accordingly. I don’t think we can predict what she would think about therapeutic cloning, genetic engineering, or many other technologies that have been developed since she passed. I do think she would have considered carefully, educating herself on the ramifications each would have on ourselves and our natural world.

Brain doping to further science

The 10 April Nature presents the results of a survey that aimed to determine how many scientists are using cognition enhancing drugs. Caffeine is of course the most widely used stimulant, but it seems that quite a few people are using other substances to improve concentration.

For those who choose to use, methylphenidate was the most popular: 62% of users reported taking it. 44% reported taking modafinil, and 15% said they had taken beta blockers such as propanolol, revealing an overlap between drugs. 80 respondents specified other drugs that they were taking. The most common of these was adderall, an amphetamine similar to methylphenidate. But there were also reports of centrophenoxine, piractem, dexedrine and various alternative medicines such as ginkgo and omega-3 fatty acids.

The article, Poll results: Look Who’s Doping, reports that 1 in 5 respondents said they had used the drugs, and that all ages reported use. The whole thing started with an April Fool’s Joke by the Academic Editor in Chief of PLoS Biology! Evolutionary biologist Jonathan Eisen of UC Davis discloses all on his blog. Even thought it started with a joke, this brings up some very interesting ideas about human enhancement. Would it be so bad if people who need pinpoint concentration had the option of using a drug like Ritalin? Would they (we) be more productive, better scientists? I’m not sure. My recreational drug use currently consists of coffee and the occasional glass of wine. I don’t know if I’d try anything else. Even if I didn’t choose to use, I wouldn’t prevent others from using – the same way I feel about low-side-effect drugs like marijuana.
The editorial Defining ‘natural’, in the same issue of Nature, explores the idea that the definition of ‘natural’ should change over time, as technology makes more things possible.

Devices such as glasses, hearing aids, pacemakers and artificial hips are unnatural. Yet they are widely accepted as legitimate ways to enhance the human experience. By the same token, if drugs enhance performance on a standardized test, what is so ‘natural’ about prep courses designed to improve scores?

I heartily agree. We should always examine the ethical issues – but not let ethics overwhelm us. An aside of the Look Who’s Doping article, Worrying Words, lists the four major ethical problems associated with neuroenhancing drugs, confirmed by quotes from poll respondents:

Safety – “The mild side effects will add up to be profound in due course and may even require stronger therapy to control the addiction.” 26–35 years old from Nigeria

Erosion of character – “I wouldn’t use cognitive enhancing drugs because I think it would be dishonest to myself and all the people who look to me as a role model.” 25 or younger from Guyana

Distributive justice - “Morally puts a disadvantage to people without access.” 55–65 years old from the United States

Peer pressure – “As a professional, it is my duty to use my resources to the greatest benefit of humanity. If ‘enhancers’ can contribute to this humane service, it is my duty to do so.” 66 or older from the United States

These are all valid issues, but we can not ignore the possible positive ramifications of these drugs. All sorts of professionals might benefit from enhanced concentration. Breakthroughs in science may take less time. This idea of ethical problems vs benefits is so similar to the arguments for and against genetic engineering. I hope we can all come to a satisfactory compromise on these and other issues facing science.
Note: A lot of scientist bloggers include some posts about academia, graduate student life, etc. I plan to start posting more on these topics.

Many hands make light work?

As discussed in “Farming in Utopia“, one of the benefits of modern farming is that it requires fewer people to produce more food. This benefit is ignored by those who wish to eschew technology in farming. People who have the luxury of choice shouldn’t force their choices on those with no choices at all. A prime example of this behavior can be found in Jose Bove. The actions and words of people like him mean that people in places like Africa haven’t been allowed to choose what types of farming are best for them.

Poor farmers all over the world are battling drought, insects, fungi… with their bare hands. They may have access to some pesticides and fertilizers. If they are lucky, their inputs are the right ones, and not too toxic. The farmers certainly aren’t stupid, but they haven’t had access to all the bells and whistles that farmers in the US, Europe, and Australia can choose.

There are many reasons for the disparity, including socio-political problems. The Gates Foundation is funding a new Green Revolution, with the goal of ending hunger in Africa, that includes a build-up of infrastructure with a healthy dollop of plant breeding. They recognize that a one-size-fits-all approach won’t work in Africa, so they are “developing appropriate seeds to attain the best yields in the diverse environments of Africa and working to make sure these high-quality seeds are delivered to farmers who need them most.”

The Gates’ program has many facets, but the absence of one is striking. Bowing to efforts of anti-technology activists, the Alliance for a Green Revolution states: “Our mission is not to advocate for or against the use of genetic engineering.” They “will consider funding the development and deployment of such new technologies only after African governments have endorsed and provided for their safe use.” This is sad, because the African governments are held hostage by the same activists on the subject of GMOs. Genetic engineering could bring critical crop adaptations to the people who need them very quickly, much more quickly than depending on traditional breeding or mutation via radiation.

Some people, such as those at Food First, cringe at the mention of the Green Revolution, but I challenge their opinions on the subject. It is unethical to condemn Norm Borlaug for the Green Revolution that he brought about. His calling was to end hunger, using the methods he had. It is unfortunate that he bred lines that are dependent on fertilizer inputs, but the environmental consequences were not known at the time. Regardless, the impetus was to feed the hungry. Today, our knowledge is much greater, so we can do much better – especially with engineered crops that require little-to-no pesticide and fertilizer.

Can we, who enjoy the spoils of technology, prevent that very technology from getting into the hands of the poor?

Farming in Utopia

What farming is today, what it should be, and what people think it should be are very different things. Pro-organic, pro-biointensive mini- and maxi-activists have a distinct idea of what they think farming should be, but don’t quite understand all of the ramifications. For the most part, I heartily agree with them, but I do understand (at least some of) the ramifications for our society and our food supply.
The industrial revolution brought people away from their fields and into the cities. More and more mouths need to be fed, but fewer people want to farm. There are a few ways to solve this problem. One is our current system – larger and larger monoculture farms, with every aspect (from seed to grocery store) controlled by fewer and fewer corporations, and farmed by fewer people. In this system, the need to achieve higher and higher yields of a few main crops has caused increased dependence on chemical inputs. These crops aren’t even considered food anymore, having moved to commodity status.  There are, of course, numerous well-known problems with this system. What are the alternatives?
In the dreams of activists, all farms would be small, perhaps 50 acres or less. Farmers would use as little technology as possible in farming (only “natural” pesticides, no fertilizers besides manure and compost, no tilling of the soil, etc) so as to be more “natural”. The crops would be heirloom varieties, with much genetic diversity and never altered with technology. Monocultures would not exist, with plants grown together in systems designed to help keep the soil healthy and share nutrients. Farms would distribute their produce no more than 100 miles from where it was grown.
For example, the gold standard of bio-intensive farming was pioneered by certain Native American tribes. They planted the “three sisters” – corn, squash, and beans. In this ingenious system, the plants deter each other’s pests and fertilize each other.
This system is so great that farmers is the US and other developed countries should be using it, right? Not having to use fertilizer or pesticides would save money, and be better for the environment, right? The activist’s dream seems to be perfect, until we look a bit deeper.
Unfortunately, things just aren’t that simple. As depicted in the picture to the right, a larger square footage needs to be devoted to this style of farming. The crops must be planted, tended to, and harvested by hand because farming equipment would squish the squash. Fertilizer is still needed for all but the most perfect soils, irrigation remains necessary, and pests are still a constant threat. In other words, this method is great for hobbyists or subsistence farmers who have the time to care for their plants by hand. It might even work for CSAs or other small vegetable farms that can use volunteer labor or charge a premium for their produce. It won’t work, however, to feed the millions of people that live nowhere near farms.
So-called organic farming won’t feed the world either. It’s great for many reasons, but is inherently more risky than conventional farming. Recent studies have shown that organic can compete with conventional farming for yield, but that’s in ideal conditions. We have to consider temperature fluctuations, droughts, insect infestations… problems that can be best solved with technology.
Organic farming also requires more labor to produce the same amount of food. Modern society simply is not prepared to have large proportions of the population employed by farming.  Less than 1% of Americans make their living as farmers. With the price of food being so low and the price of land being so high (even before corn ethanol), it is impossible to recruit enough people to become farmers to feed every person with this type of farming method. I don’t forsee huge numbers of people deciding to farm, or forsee the population getting any smaller.
Another problem is that few people eat squash and beans. Unfortunately, food is subject to the laws of supply and demand. Consumers in the US, and increasingly in the rest of the world, want convenience more than they want fresh vegetables. Although things are getting better, Americans in particular still choose grain-fed beef and fried potatoes over whole grains and leafy greens. Huge fields of corn, soy, rice, wheat, and a few other crops are simply a fact of life.
Does that mean we should give up and accept factory farming, row after row of environment and health damaging monocultured crop? Of course not, but there is a way between the ideal organic and ideal corporate farms. Last week, in a wonderful lecture about her small farm in Iowa, Laura Krouse said something profound: her farm is “as organic as it needs to be”. Using ideas from all types of farming is the only way we can meet the demands of the future.
I propose that we find a happy median – intelligent use of technology combined with stewardship. We need to find the best ways to grow enough food without irreversibly damaging our land and water. Genetic engineering can solve many of our problems, but it needs to be carefully applied. I’ll discuss how in future posts.