Mar 15, 2011

Debate

Send Add comment

“‘Creation’ is not a stop sign, but a call to act responsibly.”

In the debate about the accountability of plant genetic engineering, ethical and moral arguments play a role as well as scientific criteria. Among them, there is much talk about ‘safeguarding creation’. Critics of plant genetic engineering in particular use this as an argument to try to place restrictions on a purely functional approach to nature. - GMO Safety spoke to Dr Stephan Schleissing of the Institut Technik-Theologie-Naturwissenschaften (Technology-Theology-Natural Sciences Institute) about the nature of the public debate surrounding plant genetic engineering, about ethical perspectives and ways of achieving a better culture of dialogue.

GMO Safety: A bitter conflict about genetic engineering in plants has been raging in Germany for years. How do you interpret this conflict and the way in which it is being conducted?

Stephan Schleissing: It is in fact astounding how persistent the debate is proving to be in Germany. We have been discussing this topic for over 20 years and it gives the impression that we are not making any progress. The way I understand it, the debate about plant genetic engineering is about more than risks and opportunities. It is in part a discourse that stands for other issues. For consumers it is primarily about food safety, so ‘naturalness’, i.e. familiarity, is very important. However, because consumers do not see that plant genetic engineering offers any benefits at this level, they assume that it will benefit only the suppliers, not consumers. But plant genetic engineering is not just a surrogate issue for the need for safe food. The subject is also particularly controversial among farmers because it provides a neat way of dealing with unsettling questions concerning the modernisation of agriculture.

GMO Safety: It often looks as if the debate is morally and ethically charged. Being against genetic engineering is ‘good’; being in favour of it is seen as objectionable and selfish, or vice versa. What does this mean for the quality of the debate?

Stephan Schleissing: Among the general public – unlike in a philosophy seminar – ‘moral’ means more than just good, justifiable grounds. Moral always also stands for identity issues: Who am I? Who respects me as a person? Lots of people are finding that the stability of their relationships and even social reference systems can be tenuous. In such a situation, moral communication demands respect for the person. But in questions of agriculture and new farming methods, we are also dealing with tangible interests and benefit considerations. Lots of people have the impression that their needs are not being taken into account. They resist this by accusing those in favour of a new technology of having self-serving motives. This means that the discussion quickly turns into a for-or-against debate. What we need is open dialogue in which the interests of both sides are taken seriously.

GMO Safety: This means you are also concerned about who has the power of interpretation in the risk assessment debate?

Stephan Schleissing: I am. Mutual respect for different points of view is particularly advisable when we approach the limits of our understanding – as is the case with assessing the risk of plant genetic engineering. Mutual respect also means relinquishing any monopoly on ethical interpretation. Anyone who relies purely on fear-mongering, like Greenpeace, or who disparages the risk perception of large numbers of consumers as simply irrational, as many proponents of plant genetic engineering have been known to do, undermines the conditions necessary for constructive dialogue. In this case, moral arguments only communicate more disregard for the other side.

GMO Safety: How could science in particular help to make the debate more constructive?

Stephan Schleissing: : In our society, people expect scientific findings to be verifiable and impartial. Scientists are highly regarded as a result, and rightly so. However, scientists gamble away this authority when they make far-reaching promises about the potential of new discoveries. I therefore think it would be wise to exercise self-restraint when making claims about the problem-solving capacity of science. Things that can be correct and verifiable in the laboratory, can still be uncertain or unresearched in farming practice. It takes more than the right technology to weld theory and practice. But the sciences (please note the plural!) have resources here that they are not currently making sufficient use of. When it comes to plant genetic engineering, for instance, research is being conducted not only by biologists, but also by social scientists, economists and agricultural scientists.

GMO Safety: So are you in favour of making greater use of socioeconomic criteria as a basis for deciding in favour of or against products of genetic engineering?

Stephan Schleissing: After all, we use more than just the natural sciences as a benchmark in normal life. The natural sciences can only describe the probability of health and environmental effects as a result of plant genetic engineering. Lots of other issues come into play when we consider the question: do we want plant genetic engineering or not? Ethical criteria and social impacts of the new technology are two examples. We cannot exclude these aspects. The problem is that the scientific benchmark and socioeconomic evaluations describe very different spheres. Socioeconomic assessments are also very individual and cannot be made entirely objective. If we do not differentiate clearly here between scientific risk assessment and the way it is perceived or assessed by society, I fear that shifting the debate towards socioeconomics will make it even more ideologically charged. This will make it difficult to manage when it comes to the issue of legal regulation.

GMO Safety: Almost every discussion about plant genetic engineering mentions ‘safeguarding creation’. Do you think this phrase – in the way it is usually used – is appropriate? As a theologian, do you believe it is helpful?

Stephan Schleissing: First of all, it is noticeable that some of the people who make use of this religious theme are people who otherwise tend to keep their distance from Christian doctrine. ‘Safeguarding creation’ expresses an intuition – an intuition that the conditions for the success of technical innovations are not controlled by their inventors or by the engineers. Understood properly, the phrase appeals to our intelligence: act in such a way that you can be corrected by the consequences of your action. This is a conservative basic impulse, which I actually believe is very sensible when dealing with nature. But when talk about safeguarding creation is used to stake out a sweeping taboo zone for new technologies and to declare plant biotechnology and GM farming as a gamble with creation, then I don’t believe, as a theologian, that this is legitimate. We live in a fallen creation – see Chapter 3 of the first book of Moses. Man’s scriptural mission to take responsibility for creation, is not measured against some supposed idyllic state, but relates to the need of all fellow human beings. ‘Creation’ from a Christian perspective always relates to a culture in which we use science and research to improve food security. ‘Creation’ is not a stop sign, but a call to act responsibly.

GMO Safety: Genetic engineering is seen by many people as an unacceptable intervention in life. Are there ethical or theologically justified limits beyond which plant research should not go?

Stephan Schleissing: ‘Life’ covers a multitude of different aspects. The swine flu virus is as much a part of life as a maize plant. Obviously, what matters is what will be of benefit to the coexistence of living things. Humans have always understood their relationship with nature partly as an instrumental relationship. Although there are ethical limits when mankind exposes the nature of this relationship to uncontrollable risks, establishing what counts as an uncontrollable risk is decided through a consensus of risk perception, rather than from the results of a purely biological risk assessment. There are also aesthetic limits. After all, agriculture is also landscape – a landscape in which we want to feel a home. As well as questions concerning e.g. food justice, the precautionary principle is therefore an important ethical criterion because it calls for consideration of food as a ‘means to life’ rather than focusing purely on efficiency aspects.

GMO Safety: How we deal with a lack of knowledge is often a contentious issue as well. Critics of plant genetic engineering in particular say that all the possible consequences should be known before a technology like plant genetic engineering is introduced.

Stephan Schleissing: Here we must surely differentiate between calculable consequences/risks and things we cannot know today because our knowledge is always limited. New developments always bring a dimension of the unknown with them. But sticking to what appears familiar does not guarantee that everything will continue as before either. When it comes to plant genetic engineering, however, people are right to be cautious – at least in Europe. I don’t see that biosafety research is taking the easy way out here. Maybe science would benefit more if people, e.g. politicians, didn’t make it responsible for predicting every single possible consequence. As I said: scientific knowledge is always limited knowledge. This goes for both sides – advocates and opponents. But at some point, politicians will have to take a decision despite our limited knowledge. For the public, the important thing is to know that people are acting responsibly.

GMO Safety: Thank you for talking to us.