AN AUSTRALIAN science organization’s decision to stop a research project on genetically modified peas has become a rallying point for groups and individuals that argue against the genetic modification of plants.
But far from supporting their point, the Australian situation proves that genetic research has the safeguards needed to protect people and the environment.
The highly respected Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization had developed GM peas to provide protection from the pea weevil, a major insect pest of the crop that costs producers and requires spraying of pesticides to protect the plants.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
The genetic alteration involved taking a gene for a protein that protects beans and moving it into peas. It worked and the peas had almost complete protection.
Though still far from commercialization, CSIRO asked Food Standards Australia New Zealand what information it would need to make a decision about approving the GM pea for human consumption. Food Standards gave its advice and CSIRO then asked Australian immunologists to examine the protective protein as it functioned in the new pea host. Feeding trials found the protein had subtly changed and caused a non-lethal inflammation of the mice’s lungs.
At this point the researchers dropped their project but said they’d apply the knowledge to new projects.
Anti-GMO campaigners picked up the story, alleging that it highlights the danger of GM research. A Greenpeace spokesperson said the research “clearly demonstrates that genetic engineering is a dangerous technology.”
Hardly.
The potential problem in the altered pea protein was flagged early for examination and once confirmed, the research stopped, long before being presented for regulatory approval, let alone presenting any danger to people or animals.
The Australian experience should give the public comfort, not concern about GM research.
To condemn a technological tool because some of its applications are rejected is foolhardy.
In laboratories around the world, projects stop every day because problems are detected during development.
To look at it through the lens of another arm of science, should all pharmaceutical development stop because some formulations are rejected during research? Of course not. This would rob humanity of the fruits of drug research that have saved billions of lives.
Genetic transformation is a younger science, but it too holds the promise of great societal benefits.
In science, some things work and others don’t. We will never know which is which unless we allow researchers to explore.
That exploration must have defined boundaries, ethics and safeguards, but within those boundaries scientists must be allowed to work.
