Transcripts
"Should we be scared of new technology?"
by Stuart Parkinson, Britain
Uncanny parallels between GM research now and nuclear power in the 1950s
It is extremely difficult to predict which directions technological development will take us, or what the effects of any new technology might have on society and the wider environment. Some effects will undoubtedly be positive, and others negative - but which will dominate for a given technology? One new technology which has recently begun to be widely adopted is genetically-modified (GM) crops. Should we be scared of this technology? Will it damage human health and the environment? Or are these fears unfounded? Before looking at the current evidence concerning this technology, it would be useful to try to derive some lessons from the past introduction of a ground-breaking new technology: nuclear power.
Atoms for peace
The world's first nuclear power station, Calder Hall in the UK, was 'switched on' in 1956. In those early days, government and industry officials were quick to sing the praises of this new technology. In general, they made four basic claims for nuclear power: (1) nuclear power would be independent of nuclear weapons; (2) nuclear power would become very cheap; (3) the chance of a major accident would be insignificant; (4) nuclear waste will pose no significant problems.
Nuclear power has not lived up to these claims. An example of the first claim comes from US President Eisenhower who, in 1953, made his famous 'Atoms for peace' speech, highlighting the intention to develop nuclear power independently of nuclear weapons [1]. There was, and still is, a very clear attempt by advocates of nuclear power to distance themselves from these weapons of mass destruction.
However, all nuclear power stations produce plutonium as waste, and this is the main substance used to construct nuclear weapons. The way a plant is operated determines whether the plutonium it produces is 'weapons grade' or 'civil grade'. But potentially, any plant can be operated so that it produces weapons grade material.
What is more, even civil grade material can be used to make a nuclear bomb - it is just a bit more difficult. Consequently, the spread of nuclear power can cause the spread of nuclear weapons. For example, both India and Pakistan developed nuclear weapons after obtaining nuclear power technology.
In 1954, the Chair of the US Atomic Energy Commission proclaimed that nuclear power would eventually bring about an age when electricity would be 'too cheap to meter'. Yet, after 50 years of development, nuclear power has still not even become economic. Government subsidies are required for construction, while the full costs of decommissioning old plants and safely disposing of the waste are still rising.
In the UK for example, the Government's current estimate for decommissioning all plants and dealing with their waste is a massive £48 billion. The industry has only set aside £4 billion to pay this bill. Further, the two UK nuclear operators British Energy and BNFL are currently in major financial difficulties.
In 1975 the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission concluded that the risk of a major accident in a typical US reactor was 1 in 1 million years of reactor operation. Barely four years later, such an accident was only narrowly averted at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant. Then in 1986, a major nuclear accident did occur at Chernobyl in the Ukraine. Casualties to date are estimated at 4,000 dead and 3.5 million suffering from radiation related illnesses.
After Chernobyl, nuclear experts revised up their estimates of the probability of a major accident significantly.
In 1960 the UK Atomic Energy Authority ordered a stop to research on the safe storage on high-level nuclear waste as they believed they knew enough to safely store it. They were roundly criticised in 1976 by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and the research was restarted.
High level waste is extremely dangerous (ie it can kill an unprotected person in minutes), but much is still in temporary storage, as treatment is expensive and long-term disposal is controversial.
“Feed the world” through GM
There are some important parallels between the case of GM crops and nuclear power. The first is that GM crop technology also has military potential. This is due to the fact that it can be used to deploy and/ or modify crop viruses to destroy certain types of crops. One current military interest is the potential to use it to destroy crops used for illegal drugs (eg opium, cocaine).
However, if deployed in this way, it is possible that other non-target crops (eg food crops) will be killed or natural ecosystems damaged. The second parallel is the idea that GM agriculture will have major benefits for society, the most quoted one being to help 'feed the world' through major increases in crop yields.
There are two main reasons to be sceptical of this claim. The first is that current problems of food shortages are not due to a lack of food, but due to inadequate distribution of that food due to poverty, war etc. The second reason to be sceptical is that the evidence to date on the yields of GM crops are not promising.
For example, yields of GM soya are on average 5-10% lower than non-GM soya. The third parallel is the current claim that it is highly unlikely that GM agriculture will cause a major irreversible accident. The process of genetic engineering involves the transfer of genetic material between organisms. The genetically modified organism may not be stable and hence the transferred material may 'leak out' and be taken up by another organism, eg bacteria or virus. Such a transfer, known as 'horizontal gene transfer' (HGT), may lead to the creation of more virulent viruses and bacteria. Many biologists believe such events to be very unlikely. However, HGT has been observed between GM-plants and plant viruses; GM-plants and soil micro-organisms; and GM material and bacteria in the human digestive tract.
A particular concern is major, irreversible damage to soil fertility, through damage to soil micro-organisms. The final parallel between nuclear power and GM agriculture is the claim that there will be no significant environmental or health effects. However, evidence is beginning to accumulate of possible problems. For example, beneficial insects such as butterflies have been found to be damaged by GM maize, while herbicide-resistant weeds have become a problem in areas of the US growing GM cotton.
Learning from the past
There are clear parallels between the claims made by early nuclear power advocates and those currently being made by GM crop advocates. It is not uncommon for industry, governments or scientists to make enthusiastic promises of the benefits of a new technology, while paying less attention to the unknown risks.
Society should be wary of these claims and take a more precautionary approach to the introduction of new technology. One particular change needed is the reduction of the role of powerful vested interests such as the military and business in directing technological development to suit their own narrow ends.
Dr Stuart Parkinson is Chair of Scientists for Global Responsibility, UK. stuartp@sgr.org.uk
© Friends Of Le Monde Diplomatique
