Sir, - Jack Lyons (August 26th), in his denunciation of genetic modification, uses a lengthy quotation from the English scientist Thomas Huxley to support his argument. Huxley was certainly a great scientist, but in the Victorian era! Gregor Mendel's laws of genetic inheritance were not rediscovered until 1900. DNA was proved to carry genetic information in 1944. The modern science of molecular biology, on which genetic engineering is based, began only when Watson and Crick elucidated the structure of DNA in 1953.
Thomas Huxley died in 1895. To invoke his name in an argument against genetic engineering, given that the potential or even the concept of genetic modification did not come about until years after his death, is intellectually dubious. While Huxley was correct to state that "characters" were heritable from one generation to the next, the examples given (morals, intelligence, weakness, strength, viciousness and uprightness) are not determined purely at a genetic level. The environment plays a prominent role in these and other characters. While the concept of "karma" may be useful as a vague analogy, it is ultimately misleading as it introduces mystery and superstition where what is required is logic and reason.
Arguments against genetic engineering, if one expects scientists to pay any attention to them, must be rational and firmly grounded in fact. Appeals to karma, religion and long dead scientists - no matter how eminent - are largely irrelevant. They serve only to obscure the debate. The evidence and knowledge accumulated needs to be clearly assessed. Groups such as Genetic Concern and the Green Party should look at both sides of the argument and not seize on any flimsy piece of non-evidence, as they did in the recent World in Action controversy about potatoes. Jumping on the bandwagon of "research evidence" that is misleading and false does nothing for their cause. It merely reveals something about their agenda and the value they place on an objective and balanced assessment of the facts.
Genetic engineering offers much potential for improving our lives. This does not mean that it is completely risk-free. Just because research is carried out by "big business" does not automatically mean that it is propaganda. As a general principle, research, no matter what its origins, must be treated with an attitude of healthy scepticism. Neither gullibility nor arrogance are required. This applies to both sides of the debate. - Yours , etc., Paraic Kenny,
Mount Pleasant, College Road, Cork.