Biotechnology: It's time to talk -- 
Part II

EDITOR'S NOTE: In our last issue we suggested that biotechnology is among new areas of knowledge that stand apart from previous human ventures into science and technology. We called for an inclusive discussion about the use of this technology and suggested that universities could play an important role. In this article we follow up on these thoughts.

Everybody hears about biotechnology, a lot of people are talking about it, and we at the Leopold Center say that well-reasoned, well-informed discussion about it is critical. But exactly what we are talking about?

As one of our readers pointed out about our first piece on biotechnology, it's difficult to have a reasonable discussion unless everyone agrees on a starting point. The Royal Society of Canada notes that "one of the most important questions involved in the assessment of the potential hazards of these products and techniques is that of how they differ, if at all, from traditional means of modifying the genetic character of organisms." 

Definitions of biotechnology cover the gamut: anything from crossing two varieties of peas to rows of cover crops to the most extreme experiments in genetic manipulation. The primary agencies of industry and government have chosen intentionally broad definitions. For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture defines biotechnology as "a collection of scientific techniques, including genetic engineering, that are used to create, improve or modify plants, animals and micro-organizations." Industry leader Monsanto thinks of biotechnology and the genetic enhancement of agricultural products as one of the oldest of human activities. At the other end of the spectrum, scientists in the field distinguish between all manner of biotechnologies, including cell and tissue culture, protein engineering, recombinant and non-recombinant DNA techniques.

We suggest, as a starting point for conversation, that when lay people use any number of biotech terms—biotechnology, genetic engineering, genetic modification, GE, transgenic foods, and/or GMO—they are referring to the use of non-sexual processes to transfer genetic materials between species.

Given a starting point, we need to have somewhere to move. The dialogue needs to be opened. Dr. Walt Fehr, director of the Office of Biotechnology at ISU, agrees. Fehr notes that Iowa State University, home to the 14-year-old Bioethics Program that has been funded by the Office of Biotechnology, is well positioned to take the lead on this issue.

Fehr notes that an additional motivation for dialogue is a recent grant from the USDA that provides for a four-year multi-state study of the social, economic and ethical aspects of agricultural biotechnology. "Iowa State University is committed to bringing together the appropriate constituents for a meaningful dialogue," he writes. "The time is right."

The Center plans to work with Dr. Fehr and other interested faculty to set the stage for what Center director Fred Kirschenmann calls a "well-reasoned and respectful" discussion of the issues surrounding the adoption of this rapidly-evolving technology.

No dates have been set, but we'll keep you posted via local media and the Leopold Center web site.

News reports about biotechnology may be oversimplified, but increased media coverage also can be an opportunity for better understanding and discussion of complex issues.

Eric Abbott, an Iowa State University professor of journalism and mass communication, has studied how major newspapers in the United States and abroad have reported stories that deal with genetically modified crops. He found that certain events -- reports of StarLink corn found in taco shells or a study on the effects of Bt corn pollen on Monarch larvae — trigger a flurry of news stories. He also found that over time, the role of scientists and industry in the public debate over GMOs declined, while citizens' groups had reasonably high access to mass media. Newspapers also relied on farmers as news sources after a trigger event.

Abbott said some of the changes in the way a story is reported in the mass media occur when a topic becomes a social issue, rather than a scientific issue. The first stories about GMOs appeared in the business section of newspapers and have since moved to the front page. At the height of news coverage nearly a year ago, there were three times as many stories in British newspapers compared to newspapers in the United States.

Newspapers often are studied because research shows that people tend to get a lot of their scientific information from mass media.