Biotechnology: It's time to talk

As we go to press, we are awash in biotechnology news and reviews. From the recent World Food Prize to StarLink corn and monarch butterflies, biotechnology has been a front-page story.

At the Leopold Center, our primary interest in biotechnology is related to its fit with sustainability in agriculture and food systems. And we are certain that the polarization of opinions about this technology means that a lot of important questions are not being asked or even discussed.

Our namesake Aldo Leopold gives us this advice: "The first precaution of intelligent tinkering is to keep all the parts." Leopold's "intelligent tinkering" would require not just molecular biologists, corporate CEOs, regulators and policymakers, but all of us. Listening to everyone is important-possibly critical-because biotechnology is among a new era of highly democratic tools, which once employed, cannot be called back. The role our land grant universities could play is important, a golden opportunity to engage constituents. We need to work together for ways to bring the public into the discussion thoughtfully and respectfully, and to establish a much needed "safe" place for debate.

The time has come to talk - and in a manner which we've seldom seen or tackled in this country. Dismissing the general public because we may think they lack scientific background or because they do not subscribe to "proper" protocols is not engagement. All voices should be heard and issues thoughtfully debated.

• Where can markets provide sufficient guidance for the use of biotechnology? Or can we only ensure the technology's best use (the most public gain with least public risk) through regulatory control?
• Who owns the technologies and products in question? What are the implications for further technological advances?
• What problems is biotechnology best suited to address?
• How do the proposed technologies rate on a scale of minimal to extreme, both good and bad, in their geographic, social, biological, and magnitude of potential impact? Are there less risky alternatives?

Finally, with respect to the role of science in this debate, science is not limited to the sole pursuit of proving things step by step. Science can embrace the search for a universal explanation or theory, a description of the nature of things that seems to be missing in current conversations.

Let's not wait for hindsight to decide if this technology-biotechnology-is the next revolution, the next problem or simply another substitution for the last overused toy. We have the tools to assess and guide this new technology, and we all have a voice. All the voices need to be heard. -Jeri Neal, Grants coordinator