Skip to main content

Assessing the value of transgenic crops

Abstract

In the current controversy about the value of transgenic crops, matters open to empirical inquiry are centrally at issue. One such matter is a key premise in a common argument (that I summarize) that transgenic crops should be considered to have universal value. The premise is that there are no alternative forms of agriculture available to enable the production of sufficient food to feed the world. The proponents of agroecology challenge it, claiming that agroecology provides an alternative, and they deny the claim that it is well founded on empirical evidence. It is, therefore, a matter of both social and scientific importance that this premise and the criticisms of it be investigated rigorously and empirically, so that the benefits and disadvantages of transgenic-intensive agriculture and agroecology can be compared in a reliable way. Conducting adequate investigation about the potential contribution of agroecology requires that the cultural conditions of its practice (and, thus, of the practices and movements of small-scale farmers in the “third world”) be strengthened—and this puts the interests of investigation into tension with the socio-economic interests driving the development of transgenics. General issues about relationship between ethical argument and empirical (scientific) investigation are raised throughout the article.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. 1.

    Thompson, P.B. (1997) Food Biotechnology in Ethical perspective, Blackie Academic & Professional, London.

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Borlaug, N.E. (2000) Ending world hunger: the promise of biotechnology and the threat of antiscience zealotry, Plant Physiology 124: 487–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Human Development Report (2001) Making New Technologies Work for Human Development, United Nations Development Programme, 〈http://www.undp.org/hdr2001/〉.

  4. 4.

    Nuffield Council on Bioethics (1999) Genetically Modified Crops: The social and ethical issues, The Nuffield Foundation, London.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Persey, G.J. & Lantin, M.M. (2000) Agricultural Biotechnology and the Poor, CGIAR and US National Academy of Science, Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Potrykus, I. (2001) Golden rice and beyond, Plant Physiology 125: 1157–1161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Serageldin, I. (1999) Biotechnology and food security in the 21st century, Science 285: 387–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Specter, M. (2000) The pharmageddon riddle, The New Yorker, April 10, 2000: 58–71.

  9. 9.

    Lacey, H. (2003) Seeds and their socio-cultural nexus, in: Harding, S. & Figueroa, R. (eds), Philosophical Explorations of Science, Technology and Diversity. Routledge, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Lacey, H. (1999) Is Science Value Free? Values and scientific understanding, Routledge, London.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Lacey, H. (2002) “The ways in which the sciences are and are not value free,” In: Gardenfors, P., Kijania-Placek, K. & Wolenski, J. (eds), Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 513–526.

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Lewontin, R. (2001) “Genes in the food!” The New York Review of Books 48, No 10: 81–84.

  13. 13.

    Altieri, M. (2001) Genetic Engineering in Agriculture: The myths, environmental risks, and alternatives, Food First, Oakland.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Ho, M.-W. (2000a) Genetic Engineering: Dream or nightmare, Continuum, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Rissler, J. & Mellon, M. (1996) The Ecological Risks of Engineered Crops, MIT Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    NRC (1999) Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants: Science and regulations. A report of the Committee on Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants, Board on Agriculture and National Resources, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Ho, M.-W., Ryan, A. & Cummins, J. (1999) Cauliflower mosaic viral promotor—a recipe for disaster, Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease 11: 194–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Altieri, M (2000) The ecological impacts of transgenic crops on agroecosystem health, Ecosystem Health 6: 13–23.

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Nodari, R.O. & Guerra, M.P. (2001) Avaliação de riscos ambientais de plantas transgênicas, Cadernos de Ciência e Tecnologia 18: 61–116.

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Bergelson, J. & Purrington, C. (2000) Factors affecting the spread of resistant Arabidopsis thaliana populations, in: Letourneau, D.K. & Burrows, B.E. (eds.) Genetically Modified Organisms: Assessing environmental and human health effects, CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp. 17–31.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Raffensperger, C. & Tickner, J. (1999) Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle, Island Press, Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Lacey (2000) Seeds and the knowledge they embody, Peace Studies 12: 563–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Lacey (2001) Incommensurability and ‘multicultural science’, in: Hoyningen-Huene, P. & Sankey, H. (eds.) Incommensurability and Related Matters, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 225–239.

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Ye, X., Al-Babili, S., Klöti, A., Zhang, J., Lucca, P., Beyer, P., Potrykus, I. (2000) Engineering provitamin A (Beta-carotene) biosynthetic pathway into (carotenoid-free) rice endosperm, Science 287: 303–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    McGloughlin, M. (1999) Ten reasons why biotechnology will be important to the developing world, AgBioForum 2: 163–174.

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Ho, M.-W. (2000b) The ‘golden rice’—an exercise in how not to do science, website of Institute of Science in Society, 〈http://www.i-sis.org/rice.shtml〉..

  27. 27.

    Rosset, P. (2001) “Genetic engineering of food crops for the Third World: An appropriate response to poverty, hunger and lagging productivity?” in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainable Agriculture in the New Millennium — the Impact of Modern Biotechnology on Developing Countries (in press); available at 〈http://www.foodfirst.org/progs/global/biotech/belgium-gmo.html〉.

  28. 28.

    Altieri, M. (2000b) No: poor farmers won’t reap the benefits, Foreign Policy 119: 123–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Altieri, M. (1995) Agroecology: The science of sustainable agriculture, 2nd ed., Westview, Boulder.

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Altieri, M.A., Yurjevic, A., Von der Weid, J.M. & Sanchez, J. (1996) Applying agroecology to improve peasant farming systems in Latin America, in: Costanza, R., Segura, O. & Martinez-Alier, J. (eds.) Getting down to Earth: Practical applications of ecological economics, Island Press, Washington, pp. 365–379.

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Altieri, M.A. (1987) Agroecology: The scientific basis of alternative agricultures, Westview, Boulder, pp. xiv-xv.

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Kloppenburg, J., Jr. (1987) The plant germplasm controversy, Bioscience 37: 190–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Zhu, Y., Chen, H., Fan, J., Wang, Y. Li, Y, Chen, J., Fan, J., Yang, S., Hu, L., Leung, H., Mew, T.W., Teng, P.S., Wang, Z. & Mundt, C.C. (2000) Genetic diversity and disease control in rice, Nature 406: 718–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Wolfe, M.S. (2000) Crop strength through diversity, Nature 406: 681–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Tilman, D. (1998) The greening of the green revolution, Nature 396: 211–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Tilman, D. (2000) Causes, consequences and ethics of biodiversity, Nature 405: 208–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Tilman, D. (1999) Reply to Andrén O., Kirchmann, H. & Pettersson, O. (1999) Reaping the benefits of cropping experiments, Nature 399: 14.

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Lacey, H. (forthcoming) Alternativas à tecno-ciéncia e os valores do Forum Social Mundial, in: Loureiro, I. & Correa, J. (eds.) O Espírito de Porto Alegre, Paz e Terra, São Paulo.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hugh Lacey.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lacey, H. Assessing the value of transgenic crops. SCI ENG ETHICS 8, 497–511 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-002-0003-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • transgenics
  • agroecology
  • science
  • values
  • ethics