BT Corn: future or fear?

It doesn’t take much to see that the public discussion over the genetic modification of food within Europe has gone considerably astray. Scientists often lament the lack of scientific input (and may reflect on why there is so little), while civil society groups lament the lack of public voice and the restrictions on the current debate. The issue has become so sensitive that the slightest hint of agreement or disagreement with a particular form of biotechnology brings forth a barrage of media and political criticism (and support) quite out of proportion to any specific research or proposed introduction of new technology. Instead of sensitive debate about complex risks (not only bio-risks, but also socio-economic risks), we have two camps at war. I have little doubt - from the short period of time that I have been researching into the African biotechnology debate - this warring scenario is already spreading fast across the African continent. In this blog I will argue that one way out of this now polarised situation is to a step back, reflect upon our conceptualisation of the gene itself, and then re-launch the debate without recourse to deterministic views of genetics.

My own line of research focussing upon the communication of science – particularly genetics and biotechnology. In reviewing why it is such hard work to communicate across academic and professional boundaries, I was struck by the comments of several scientists and journalists who mentioned the difficulties, not just of explaining science to the non-expert public, but the particular implications of translating science into different languages. This brought to mind issues about language – but also issues about cultures and cultural perspectives. Looking at science and public communication over genetics from afar (a cultural distancing process familiar to anthropologists) is certainly liberating. From this culturally distance perspective the protagonists in the genetic modification debate suffer not from their differences, but from their similarities. Both are fixated with promoting the view that genetics is a determinist science – they either fight to promote the benefits of genetic science on a range of issues (often far in excess of the data available), or they highlight the power of the same genetic science to unduly and negatively impact on society and culture – as if social systems possess no resilience to genetic engineering. However, given the current sensitivities of genetics debate, in the all too easily it is forgotten that this notion of genetic determinism comes primarily from a long-standing European tradition of accounting for observable attributes (such as social status) using ‘unknown’ internal biological attributes – the “The Blood Will Tell (Won’t It)” bio-social philosophy written of by Jonathan Marks. There are already a number of anthropologists who have already seized the opportunity to study the cultural understanding of genes in different cultural spheres. Many novel ideas have come out of this study – and I would point to a volume entitled “Genetic/Nature Culture” co-edited by (A.H. Goodman, D. Heath, & M.S Lindee) for an interesting and often fun read about what genes and genetics might mean within and outside of what is commonly referred to ‘Western Culture’ and ‘Western Science’. The point that is being made is that while discussion over GM food and GM health innovations is essential, this discussion is unnecessarily restrictive and may benefit from a wider cultural perspective.

So how will this culturally aware approach help with the promotion of a biotechnology debate in Africa? I would hazard a guess that it might, at the very least, provide a more liberating platform. If scientists and their current adversaries are truly interested in having a reasoned discussion over the relative benefits and risks of genetic modification in foods and in health in Africa, they might find it useful to shake off the now stereotypical and self-destructive view that genetics determines (for good or bad) just about everything, and take a radically different entrance points that emphasises genetic science as one of many equally significant complex social, cultural, scientific, and technical tools that influence food supply and health. Paradoxically, it not the lack of shared concepts that has created such a polarised discussion over genetic engineering, it is the exact opposite – both sides seem determined to fight over the same bone, and at the same time seem willing to ignore that genetic science will not solve all of Africa’s problems, nor destroy everything in its path.