There is a danger that biotechnology, and even science, are becoming dirty words, according to Prof Peter Whittaker of NUI Maynooth Department of Biology. This would be a great pity, he says, because the potential achievements of biotechnology in agriculture and medicine cannot be overestimated, particularly if research is directed towards alleviating health and nutrition problems in less developed countries.
He attributes the undermining of the reality of biotechnology to sections of "the popular news media" - The Irish Times not included - routinely exaggerating risks associated with developments and also, to an extent, the imminence of their benefits.
This is not to say that advances in biotechnology should proceed in an unthinking or uncontrolled way, he says. And there is urgent need for an advisory body on ethical aspects of biotechnology.
Aside from the cloning of Dolly the sheep, the hot biotech issue at the moment is that of genetically modified (GM) food crops. This prompts three major questions:
is genetic manipulation of a species acceptable at all?
might genetically manipulated foods be dangerous to eat?
does release of a GM crop plant pose a risk to the environment?
The first is primarily a question of principle, Prof Whittaker says. "However, it is important to realise that virtually everything we eat today - even organic foods - has, sometime in the past, been genetically manipulated by cross breeding and selection to produce bigger and better produce. The techniques used were far less predictable than today's very precise genetic manipulation." On the other questions, there is no serious indication these plants pose a danger either to consumer or the environment, he insists. "That is not to say that we shouldn't proceed with a measure of caution, evaluating each development on a case-by-case basis."
He says environmental activists are misguided, "exaggerating what are by and large hypothetical risks" in the face of tangible benefits. Biotechnology will be a major force in the 21st century, he predicts. Ireland with heavy investment in pharmaceutical, food and brewing industries, must remain at its forefront, if its future prosperity is to be ensured. The Government should also ensure profits arising from biotechnology are invested in research to improve health and nutrition in poorer countries.
Dr Colin Hill, chairman of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland's expert committee on genetically modified organisms, believes an informed debate is desirable "so that reasoned decisions can be taken by or on behalf of consumers". In his view, it is entirely consistent to approve the technology of genetic engineering, and yet object to certain applications of the technology where there is no obvious benefit to the ultimate user, the consumer.
A microbiologist at UCC, he says the techniques of genetic manipulation represent "a powerful tool" but it is "vital that there is an informed debate to determine how we should manage this new tool safely and to the benefit of us all".
He is convinced, nonetheless, that "the unravelling of the structure of DNA, and the ability to identify genes with specific traits, will stand as the towering achievement of the 20th century". The ability to manipulate genes is a direct consequence of this, but that did not mean techniques had to used unless "a direct benefit" could be realised. There is little objection to the use of genetic techniques in the production of new drugs for the treatment of disease. "This is almost certainly because the benefits are plain to see. However, the argument is not as compelling when it comes to the production of GM foods, because benefits are not obvious."
Dr Hill believes, ideally, ethical issues would be best left to individual consciences. While gene technology is a more precise extension of selective breeding, "it should not be forgotten that modifications have been governed (up to now) by certain rules of nature, in that you can only breed or cross closely related species". Yet genetic engineering allows the introduction of a gene from an unrelated species, such as from a bacterium to a plant or an animal to a bacterium - the difference, he finds, is marked.
Consumers will not, Dr Hill adds, be able to decide for themselves whether they wish to consume GM foods if there is no comprehensive and transparent labelling of foods. His committee and one affiliated to the Environmental Protection Agency play an important role in subjecting each potential application to rigorous examination. "But while these agencies monitor the environmental and food safety aspects of each new GM food, there remains the question of who is to look after ethical issues."
