Who would have thought we could stretch it this far: after 1000's of years of breeding, we are now beginning to stitch, edit and create new life forms as we please. After slowly stumbling upon the environmental problems the Industrial Age is giving back to us (massive pollution of our air, soil and water, urban sprawl, unsustainable use of natural resources and an interesting change of global climate), we now face a new challenge to our ever-curious human drive to manipulate our own destiny: genetic engineering. One might call this the absolute height of human ingeniousity. Brilliant as our science is, we are given a picture of the incredible benefits of this new technology. Just imagine: new plants and crops which will alleviate world hunger, new sources for renewable energy, and numerous health improvements. Now we can make cows which will produce just the right amount of proteins good for us humans. And what about growing human hearts in pigs to solve the lack there-of! Genetic engineering is the beginning of an era of medical and research, possibly preventing genetic diseases such as muscular dystrophy, and the destruction of the immune system through Leukemia and AIDS. Sounds good, right?

    It does. But according to Mr. Jeremy Rifkins, President of the Foundation on Economic Trends in Washington D.C., Every great technology has it costs. The more powerful the short term benefits, the more disruptive the long term. In a Februari 1998 debate organized by the Univertiy of Tennessee Knoxville, Mr. Rifkins debated Dr. Ian Wilmut who stunned the world last year with the presentation of a cloned adult sheep called Dolly over this very issue. Although the audience seemed to be ironically amused with the idea of cloning grandma, Rifkins message was received with silence. "I have studied this for 20 years, and science and corporations refuse to look at the dark side."  Dark side?

    Well, the problem has to do with human cognition: to make sense of a complex world, we necessarily simplify and consequently perceive only that information which coincides with our previously learned values. Since corporate values dominate western culture, we accept being fed brainwashing stereotypes and sales pitches which undermine spiritual growth. It is a scary thought that this species, which is not even able to acknowledge and massively fund solutions to its environmental and social crisis, is messing around with a technology that could possibly be more transformative of what we now call "nature" or "culture"  than any technology we have previously introduced. Call it evolution.

    There are important philosophical and ethical questions that need to be addressed before we dive into this experiment. Does the creation of new genetically engineered species mean the end of wild nature? And what about biodiversity? The very nature of "nature" relies on the principle of diversity: cultural as well as genetical flexibility is gained which is crucial for long term sustainability. Wouldn't the massive introduction of mammals, plants, bacteria, viruses, etc, in our biosphere have catastrophic effects on our genetic diversity? Hundreds of engineered plants are now already experimentally used in the field by companies such as Monsanto. In the coming years, thousands more will follow, ready to multiply, propagate and mutate. We can call this the most daring human experiment ever conceived" Rifkins said, "and we can't call them back if we don't like them". Evidently, no adequate predictive ecological risk assessment currently exists to legally insure companies such as Monsanto against the consequences of their profitable experiments. Who will pay the damage if such newly introduced flora and fauna do what they "naturally" are supposed to do: take over our public parks and agricultural crops?

    But the issue goes deeper. Just as the invention of the print press revolutionary started the beginning of  mass production and led us into the industrial revolution, so will the customized and massive production of living creatures influence the era to come. Ultimately, our view on reality is based on our relationship with nature. According to some scholars, the Christian belief, putting humans above nature, has laid the foundation for a dualistic western worldview, separating mind from body, object from subject, nature from culture and humans from their natural ecology.  It has given us the capacity to build sophisticated and marvelous machines, but has lured us in forgetting that we are part of an ecological system. Consequently we have lost our connection to our environment, the animals around us, and nature as a whole. Animal husbandry, or "Pharming", will drastically widen the gap we have already built. Animals will be further reduced to living factories, ignored in their intrinsic rights to live to the fullness of their existence. How we treat them will eventually be how we treat ourselves. History shows we first experiment on animals, and then it will be turned upon us," Rifkins said.

    Genetic engineering and biotechnology as a whole can not be viewed without taking into account the corporate connection. A fierce corporate battle among the life science corporations has already started to determine who will be able to control the genetic commerce. The largest merger in the history of the world ($165 million) has recently evolved in this corporate domain. In a world where 10 chemical companies control 81% of the global market, and where Walmart has a higher turnover than the GPD of about 180 countries, we haven't even begun to comprehend the enormity of a handful of life science companies patenting genes and cloned animals as "theirs". In 1980 the U.S. supreme court granted a patent on a genetically engineered micro-organism that eats up oil spills. In 1987 the Patent and Trademark Office of the U.S. determined you could patent any lifeform on the planet if you genetically modified it. This includes genes, cells, tissues, embryo's and organs. 200 genetic engineered animals are currently waiting to be patented. In the next 8 years all 100,000 genes of the human body will be identified, patented by life science laboratoria, and owned and controlled as if they invented it. Our gene pool is for sale! Reduced to a genetic mono-culture, the left genetic diversity will be turned into property. The distinction between what is alive and what is not will be further blurred for the sake of money.

    Finally there is the debate concerning Eugenics: the use of genes to improve our species. Although Nazi-Germany is the vivid example, eugenic movements have existed in the United Stated also. Now a "commercial eugenics" is on the horizon: "Isn't it your responsibility as a parent to give your baby the best you can, to make them more emotionally and medically secure? Don't you want to give them an advantage in their future? We can provide that!" Who can resist such marketing? A recent example is a Chicago scientist who insists in using genetic engineering for human cloning purposes, threatening to go to Mexico because U.S. legislation forbids him to do so. He will. What can we do?

    As of yet, no real public debate has begun on this issue. It is another blatant example of how our ethical discussion runs behind our profit driven practice. A new generation of genetic activists has yet to be born, and the current environmental movement has it hands full trying to fight anti-environmental legislation and preventing development and chipmills from further encroaching on our remaining wilderness. As Dr. Wilmut successfully argued, there are substantial benefits to genetic engineering. The question Rifkins raised is who do we trust with these blueprints of life? The government? Half of all Americans don't even vote! Government is controlled by corporate interest, and the two party system is obviously unrepresentative of public opinion. Science? Dr. Wilmut is dependent on his funders money, on his publications, on his colleagues. Unlike the popular public belief which assumes the existence of "provable and undeniable objective facts",  science is made by negotiation and relies on simplification. Negotiation is a political process, and highly dependent on esteem, prestige, and funding. Thus reasoning we are back, again, to corporate interests. Corporations are the driving motor of our economy, sure, but something must be wrong when 1% of all Americans own 40% of U.S.A. wealth. Economic growth does not consider the quality of live. It does not include loss of biodiversity and pollution of our water. It does not include the lack of health insurance, homelessness, drug use, loss of community, increasing alienation and greed. The American economy is doing great. So what?

    Dr. Wilmut himself stressed the importance of good regulations. Genetic treatments should not only be enjoyed by the rich. Little does he know about the U.S.A. health insurance crisis. Great Britain has drafted a consultation document and steps are being made to initiate public debate. Coming from Great Britain, he must have been a little puzzled by Rifkins aggression on corporate market dominance. European cultures generally allow less corporate interest to influence public opinion, and the continent has historically been less of a free enterprise culture than the U.S.A. Consequently, less is also known about the social impacts of capitalistic strategies. When Rifkins asked Wilmut if his patent included "human cloning", Wilmut answered he "didn't know". Rifkins accused Wilmut of lying, and Wilmut in turn accused Rifkins of weak arguments.  It was quite a show. They probably didn't catch a beer together afterwards.
 

Danny de Vries
February, 1998