[From nobody Sun Apr 10 19:40:17 2005 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Message-ID: <398D46A7.BA713CE1@daviesand.com> Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 07:06:15 -0400 From: Karl Davies <karl@daviesand.com> Organization: Davies & Company X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en]C-DIAL (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: SAF-News <saf-news@igc.topica.com>, NEFR List <nefr-list@igc.topica.com> CC: Steve Strauss <steve.strauss@orst.edu> Subject: Re: Genetically Engineered Ethics References: <398CA479.4C1B99F2@daviesand.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Karl Davies wrote: > I recently noticed this commentary in July's JofF. So I OCR'd it. Any > comments on the commentary? KD Don't mind if I do. > Ethics and Genetically Engineered Plantations > > Steven H. Strauss, Kenneth F. Raffa, and Peter C. List > > The current SAF Code of Ethics states that "Stewardship of the land is > the cornerstone of the forestry profession" and that "member[s] will > advocate and practice land management consistent with ecologically sound > principles." SAF ethics imply a responsibility both for active care of > natural processes of the land and for scientifically based forestry that > enhances the value of the land to people while maintaining and promoting > land health. Most foresters would probably agree with these principles; > however, they are not practical guidelines for making decisions about > the most appropriate forms of management or technology to employ. These > decisions are difficult because every alteration of the land intended to > enhance some aspect of economic production involves trade-offs with > other economic and ecological values. Well, these decisions are difficult for some foresters, particularly those who stand to gain financially from the so-called "enhancements." > Foresters and landowners often choose to segregate land uses to varying > degrees to minimize inherent conflicts. These choices can be made at the > stand, landscape, or regional scales toward a variety of goals, > including protection of areas rich in biological diversity, preservation > of indigenous cultural diversity, and promotion of commodity production. > Where intensive forestry is practiced and wood production is emphasized, > land is often allocated to plantations that are managed much like > agricultural crops. This is where foresters are most likely to be > interested in utilizing genetic modification (GM). Two questions: First, are these managers actually foresters in these situations, or are they something else--something like fiberers perhaps? Second, when they want to plant GM trees, do they then become Frankenfiberers? > GM is the insertion of new, human modified genes into chromosomes to > impart specific new traits that cannot be readily achieved through > conventional breeding. more like NEVER achieved, isn't it? Because of those pesky species boundaries, right? Those silly things which evolved over eons to protect species from infections, mutations and other deleterious effects... > The traits that have been demonstrated in trees > that might justify commercial uses are herbicide resistance, and HERBICIDE RESISTANCE, HERBICIDE RESISTANCE, HERBICIDE RESISTANCE, HERBICIDE RESISTANCE, HERBICIDE RESISTANCE... > insect > resistance, yup, gotta get rid of all those pesky insects, just like those pesky species boundaries... > increased growth rate, and increased soil depletion... > enhanced bioremediation of polluted > soil, yup, get those pollutants out of the soil and into the air, where they really belong... > and modified chemical composition of wood. the only good lignin is a genetically reduced lignin... > The trees produced by > this process are referred to as "transgenic," although only a minute > fraction of their DNA is new (e.g., 10 parts per million in poplar). Hey, what's a little mutilated DNA here and there? > The > genetic considerations that are important in GM concern the genes > inserted, the traits they impart, and the physiological processes > affected. Ecological considerations include the prediction and > monitoring of the environmental consequences of the new genes, both > inside and outside of plantations. Social considerations include the > distribution of risks, costs, and benefits that result from using these > new kinds of trees, and the extent of public acceptance for their > introduction on the landscape. Also subject to "modification" thanks to the wonders of PUBLIC RELATIONS, like in the present instance. > Although the question has been raised as to whether transgenic plants > are unacceptably "unnatural," and thus cannot be used ethically in > agriculture or forestry, it is our belief that it is impossible to make > such a categorical judgment based on science alone. Nearly all facets of > modern life depend on a vast array of technologies that have little > precedent in the nonhuman world. And that's a good thing, right? So why not add a little more technology? > Moreover, all human cultures have > modified their environments to varying degrees, using tools they have > devised for this purpose. Some of our crops have been so extensively > modified via breeding that they barely resemble their wild relatives. In > plantation forestry, many unnatural genetic technologies are currently > employed, including selective breeding, exotic species, interspecific > hybridization, population movement, and cloning. Yes, but with breeding, pines are still pines, and not porpoise-pines, whatever. > Given these precedents, how are we to decide where, or if, transgenic > trees should be used? Hmmm. Think about it and then say no? > We do not think it is possible to circumscribe, > technically, what kinds of practices are ethical in using GM trees. The > numerous combinations of genes, species, environments, and management > regimes present new and distinct benefits, ecological risks, and social > contexts. Instead, we propose that certain conditions should be met for > any use to be ethically acceptable. Finally, something that sounds reasonable. > First, the process of evaluation is critical. Because these trees will > occupy the environment and they or their transgenes may persist and > spread irreversibly outside of plantations, their use should be agreed > to by the public--either directly or indirectly (e.g., via > representative democracy). Oh boy. Where do you think we might find such a thing? I hope you weren't thinking the USA. Sheesh. > This also means that use should be preceded > by scientific research, education, and open, public discussion. > Moreover, the interest groups, companies, governments, citizens, and > scientists that participate in this discussion have an ethical > obligation to back up their views with credible information that > promotes rational debate. Public evaluation of GM that is informed by > sound scientific principles is required for determining whether, when, > and where the use of GM trees is appropriate. It would be good if we could start out with the "whether" part, but it's too late for that. The GM corporados and their researcher lackeys have already preempted that choice. > Second, the economic, utilitarian values of the transgenic traits to be > introduced, including the sustainability and distribution of benefits > and costs, should be studied to inform social evaluations. The extent to > which the technology will materially affect multinationals, regional > companies, rural economies, and citizens are important dimensions of > benefit evaluation for any technology, Especially multinationals, right? Can't forget those cuddly little critters, especially after they've paid your salaries at our "public" universities for so long. > but it is especially critical for > GM because its patent-intensive nature tends to favor very large > companies. This generates concerns that decisions will be made with > insufficient regard to the needs of local economies and environments. No shit, Sherlocks!!! > Third, the environmental impacts and risks from use of transgenic trees > should be evaluated prior to commercial deployment. These assessments > should carefully separate risks that are inherent in the technology > (e.g., a result of specific genes) from those that transcend the > technology (e.g., impacts of plantations), and consider how methods of > deployment can aggravate of mitigate risks. For example, single gene > forms of pest resistance in trees might be used sustainably if they are > part of an integrated pest management system, but they are likely to be > ecologically unacceptable without such a system. Because uncertainties > about ecological effects will necessarily persist, adaptive management > associated with ongoing public research should continue if commercial > introduction occurs. I have a better idea. How about if the developers and propagators of these technologies FULLY INSURE THEMSELVES AGAINST ALL POSSIBLE RISKS AND DAMAGES? That sort of makes sense, doesn't it? I mean, they/you stand to make a helluva lot of money. Why not set some aside to insure against things like viral plagues, ecological collapse, etc? > Finally, evaluations of all risks, costs, and benefits--economic, > social, and environmental-need to be integrated and holistic in nature. > For example, if there were stand-level reductions in biological > diversity associated with transgenic plantations, IF??? IF??? > they may be socially > acceptable if they translate into greater net ecological and economic > benefits at regional or national levels (e.g., if transgenic plantations > were to help make renewable bioenergy crops economically competitive for > the benefit of rural economies, or promote global carbon sequestration). > Likewise, although the use of GM plantations may be socially or > ecologically unacceptable if their economic efficiency promotes the > large-scale conversion of wild forests to plantations, they may be > supported if they are introduced in concert with land-use controls that > maintain critical habitat. But that's the whole point, isn't it? ALL habitat is critical. And ALL habitat is at risk from GM plantations. > The challenges to ethical uses of GM trees in forestry reside not in the > process by which they are created, Are you serious? Deliberately crossing species boundaries is a PROFOUND ethical and religious issue. If you can't see this, you should be institutionalized. But I can see from below that you already are. > but rather in how their new > characteristics and use will affect the environment and society. > Substantial benefits have been documented in laboratory and field > experiments. However, there are reasonable ecological and social > concerns based on precedents from other kinds of agricultural > technology. Like what? What other kinds of agricultural technology remotely compare with deliberately crossing species, genera and family boundaries? > The key problems are deciding when our knowledge base is > adequate, when there has been sufficient public discussion, and when > there is adequate social consensus that the net effects for proposed > uses are positive. If the process of public evaluation is scientifically > sound and democratically rigorous, it should be possible to enjoy a > continuing flow of new products from this rapidly maturing technology > for the benefit of forestry in coming decades. If it is not, the > technology may remain on the shelf in spite of its technical merits. Altogether, I think the authors of this commentary have been drinking too much Roundup. It has affected their judgment. KD > Steven H. Strauss (steve.strauss@orst.edu) is professor, Department of > Forest Science, Oregon State University, 202 Forestry Sciences > Laboratory, Corvallis, OR 97331-7501; Kenneth F. Raffa is professor of > entomology University of Wisconsin Madison; Peter C. List is professor > of philosophy, Oregon State University, Corvallis. ]