Circular Cruises/Trusting Science
From Eccentric Flower
 |
Trusting Science 13 January 1998 A phenomenon which is becoming oddly familiar: I read something someone else has written on the web, see something which percolates my brain, begin to write the person a lengthy reply, and then, midway through, realize that what I am writing is no longer suited to be an email. Here is the key phrase that triggered me today, from dear old Aussie: As to cloning and recombinant DNA, I just don't think it's any more scary than other biological research. Of course if you had a psycho terrorist working at it, he might come up with some awful threat, but you can say the same thing of a psycho terrorist in a candy factory or just about anywhere else. I trust the ethics of science guys far and above non-science guys or anti-science guys. After all, the science guys just want to know the truth. One of the nice things about Aussie being Aussie is that it is safe to disagree with her. She and I have (hopefully) both established to each other that neither of us is particularly thin-skinned, and that we can take all manner of enemy fire with impunity. As to the specifics: 1. Scientists (non-psycho variety) aren't always benign. Maybe I've seen one too many late-night horror movies, but it seems to me that one of the motivating factors behind pure research is the same one which made me take alarm clocks apart as a kid to see the gears and then have no idea how to put them back together, or the impulse that made meaner kids pull the wings off insects just to see how long they'd live: Hey, that's interesting. Let's mess with it. 2. Applied research is also untrustworthy, but for different reasons: the scientists may be conscientious, but they draw a paycheck from business interests whose motivation is solely based on profitability. Corporations have historically not shown much sensitivity toward the long-term view (preserving the environment, et cetera), and they have established time and again that they are perfectly willing to wreak havoc on the bodies of humanity if it inches their profitability upwards. - - - The problem with "let's mess with it" as an impulse is that the consequences tend to get overlooked in the rush. I feel that gene tweaking, for example, is tragically unregulated. Scientists are rushing to breed the next freeze-proof tomato (which tastes plastic, but hey, can't have everything) and not spending enough time worrying about the fact that the next newer, deadlier Ebola or avian flu is just as likely to originate in a lab as anywhere else. We currently have no good way of monitoring the unpredictable side consequences of genetic tweaks, be they through the old-fashioned eugenic (i.e. breeding) methods or through high-tech direct splicing and tucking. That's what makes them unpredictable. Without ranting further about the next White Plague (because everyone tends to roll their eyes when I go there), let's consider the tomatoes. I've eaten the "freeze-proof" tomato. It really does taste rotten. In tacking on the gene chain which keeps the tomato from turning to mush under prolonged refrigeration, no one could have predicted that the taste would be affected. Nor would it have prevented the work from taking place. A society which isn't willing to show restraint with something as humble as tomatoes is a society which is going to let the same hubris carry it away in other, more dangerous endeavours. - - - Neither of these examples involves gene splicing, but follow along with me anyway. What if someone developed a chemical which killed all manner of food-supply-gnawing pests quite efficiently ... but didn't break down, and eventually seeped intact into the watersheds, poisoning a lot of other things besides the creatures it was intended to kill? What if someone made a tampon which was composed of an amazingly absorbent material which eliminated a lot of mess, and, since it could be left in longer, a lot of fuss ... but found that the combination of the material and the extended body contact tended to accumulate a kind of nasty bacteria which caused severe illness and sometimes death? These are both cases where no one foresaw the hidden consequences. Both are real. The first, DDT, was just plain stupid - no one bothered to think about it - and could have been avoided. The second, toxic shock syndrome, probably could not have. It's impossible to check in advance for a possibility you don't know exists. I recognize that all new technology has unintended or unforeseen consequences. The computer, my primary work and play tool, has changed society in so many ways, some unexpected, that several books have been written on the subject. Not all of these are mild or amusing consequences. Repetitive motion injuries were limited to serious athletes twenty years ago. However, in the case of items like pesticides and tampons, we have moved into a phase where we are more aware of the potential complications and can at least exercise a little more intelligence in searching and testing for consequences. Gene tampering is more dangerous than these examples because, in that field, we have not yet arrived at this stage of cautiousness. The usual cycle, as I see it, is: I am not proposing that gene alterations be eliminated. I am merely proposing that we move into stage 4 now - although we haven't achieved "widespread use," we've achieved enough use that it's time to pull back, regroup, and think about: How to design isolation facilities for gene experimentation, and (more importantly) how to enforce them so that no company is tempted to cut corners on them; what forms of genetic experimentation are permanently off-limits, and how to give that rule teeth; whether genetically-modified goods should be allowed to be advertised as such; and so on. The problems, of course, are always in enforcement, as our government has shown repeatedly that it is incapable of enforcing the corporate restrictions already in existence. (The EPA guidelines are a joke, for example.) - - - I agree that gene-tinkering can be a Good Thing. If it gives us a way of making people resistant to cancer, that's probably a good thing. Or is it? The really cynical point of view is, "Bring on that White Plague! Keep that cancer!" based on the fact that the planet is deathly overpopulated anyway. Of course, this cold, Malthusian viewpoint is usually a lot more palatable to those whose birth, fiscal level, medical care, and circumstances ensure that they'll come out on the good side of the coin toss. I don't like being Malthusian, but I can't have it both ways. I can't want to make humanity healthier and fight overpopulation at the same time. If we're healthier, there are more of us. Which is worse, overpopulation or gruesome infant mortality rates? Overcrowding or AIDS? The answer usually depends on whether you have AIDS or not. None of us like taking risks with our own lives, because we're all scared of death. Personally, I don't consider myself particularly scared of death, and I shoulder my own risks on my own basis. What annoys and frightens me is when I perceive that someone else is risking my life without my permission. Which is why some things make me nervous: gene-tinkering, nuclear armaments, biological warfare ... things which could kill me through no culpability of my own, things I have no control over. I imagine there will always be invisible swords of one sort or another dangling over my head that I cannot control. I accept this, as a post-nuclear child should. But I refuse to grow complacent about it.
Copyright © January 1998. All rights reserved. |
