In this Nature Op-Ed Qiang Wang say's China's country’s shifting stance on genetic modification for
crops needs the support of researchers to persuade a sceptical public.
crops needs the support of researchers to persuade a sceptical public.
He reveals that China is about to get serious on the use of genetic
modification (GM).He explains that after years of uncertainty, funding cuts and public
arguments, the country’s central government has issued a clear edict: China
needs GM, and it will work to become a world leader in the development and
application of the technology, he says,.
modification (GM).He explains that after years of uncertainty, funding cuts and public
arguments, the country’s central government has issued a clear edict: China
needs GM, and it will work to become a world leader in the development and
application of the technology, he says,.
The intent is signalled by the government’s first policy
document of the year according to Wang. Issued on 1 February, the state’s No. 1 Central Document
pledges more government support for research on GM techniques, especially for
crops, he says. But China has expressed similar enthusiasm for GM technology before, and
then backed off in the face of public protest...
pledges more government support for research on GM techniques, especially for
crops, he says. But China has expressed similar enthusiasm for GM technology before, and
then backed off in the face of public protest...
Comments at the Nature webpage include:
Giovanni Tagliabue•2015-03-05 12:51 PM
According to the author, the Chinese government’s document underlines “the need for comprehensive studies to make sure that the technology is safe to use”. Apart from the fact that we already have several hundred studies assessing the safety of currently farmed GM crops (Nicolia et al., informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07388551.2013.823595 ), I’m afraid that approach is WRONG: there is no “safe (bio)technology”: traditional or very recent methods can generate unwanted effects - many examples, GM and not, offered by Haslberger, www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v21/n7/full/nbt0703-739.html . That’s in reality no problem, we just discard the results of failed experiments, without declaring this or that biotechnology “unsafe”. Bragging about the supposed quasi-infallibility of rDNA manipulations only has the effect of deepening the rift between the anti-GMO brigade and those who are pro-biotechnology (old and new, past and future). Instead we should DESTROY the fake “GMO” pseudo-category, refuse to use it in generic, pointless terms, and stress the need to use ANY method that works, when/where it works (Gilbert, www.nature.com/news/cross-bred-crops-get-fit-faster-1.15940 ). Remember the famous motto coined (in another context) by good ol’ Paul Feyerabend: “Anything goes!”. Such perspective can instantly defuse the pugnacious attitude of many anti-GMOers: just try and see!
C. S. Prakash•2015-03-04 07:20 PM
It is sad to read that Chinese researchers face a ‘soft violence of violent language’ when they speak on the benefits of GM technology in the Chinese social media. But then such experience is not unique to Chinese scientists. Those of us willing to engage the public on the social media to talk about this technology, its benefits and its safety issues often encounter much intimidation and ridicule in the US as well, and it is especially harsh in Europe. Nevertheless, it is incumbent on the global scientific community to speak up for the technology and its profound significance in advancing agricultural productivity especially in the face of unpredictable climate change. China, India and countries in Sub-Saharan Africa have much at stake here.
No comments:
Post a Comment