Humans have modified crops and livestock for centuries; however, these changes accumulated over many generations of artificial selection. This effectively limited the degree of change that could be achieved per generation and had a balancing effect on the traits that were to be enhanced. For example, consider the potato. The wild ancestors of this staple crop were nearly inedible because of moderate levels of solanine, which acted as a natural pesticide and deterrent. After centuries of modification, the potato is safe for consumption, with some strains retaining their natural pest resistance. This was my initial opinion on genetic modification—it seemed to be simply a new spin on a (very) old idea.
However, while genetic modification as we know it today is similar in principle, it is radically different in practice. An example from the 70’s, is when Berkeley scientists isolated a mutant strain of a bacteria, the wild-type of which contributed to frost formation. The rarer mutant strain produced a defective version of the culprit protein, causing no damage to the plants. The mass-use of this “ice-minus” strain was scrapped for two reasons: (1) environmental activist groups destroyed the test sites in a public outcry, and (2) it was soon realized that little had been done to systematically assess the GM bacterial strain’s effect on the environment. The combination of lack of knowledge on the part of the public and poor risk assessment due to conflicts of interest was fatal. This story emphasizes how powerful, and potentially dangerous the ability to “speed up” evolution to such a massive degree truly is. To me, it primarily points out the dire need for government-funded, well-tested research before such technologies are implemented. Additionally, the public must be properly educated about the things that are going on around them, both for the sake of progressing science and to have a system of “checks and balances” (that does not consist only of the board members of the company developing the technologies) in place.
As with any technology of great consequence, there will always be those who will use it at the expense of others. Many issues about gene flow between GM and organic crops have recently come to light. In a 2011, the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association sued the food giant, Monsanto, for filing numerous lawsuits against farmers whose organic crop became contaminated with Monsanto’s patented genes. The case reached the Supreme Court, and though Monsanto won, it was ordered not to sue farmers for traces of patented genes less than 1% in non-GM crops.
It is possible that such litigation over seed patents and ownership will become more common in the future. Already, large companies such as Monsanto control over 80% and 90% of the corn and soybean markets respectively. Such a fight, between a powerful giant (who often have legislators in their back pockets) and the common man, is never fair, especially in our society. A legislation system where the wrongs of the mighty are almost totally obscured by money is tantamount to sending David off to battle Goliath without a sling.
Nature will, in many ways, always be a final frontier in engineering. Few engineering fields involve the design and manufacture of products (organisms and genes) that can replicate themselves to achieve near infinite lifespans. However, to assure that these technologies are used to the benefit, and not the detriment of both mankind and our environment, we cannot leave all the decision making in the hands of a few powerful people with conflicting interests. Rigorous research on these technologies needs to be funded, not by the companies who are developing them, but by the government. And most of all, the public needs to be better educated about their choices, so that they can actually, fully, understand what they are choosing.