A recent Swiss radio (DRS) podcast had an interesting report, about Golden Rice and the introduction of genetic engineering. Golden Rice was engineered to produce beta-carotene in the endosperm. The background is that Vitamin A deficiency is widespread in tropical developing countries, and that the beta-carotene (precursor of Vitamin A), although naturally produced by rice, is mainly present in the bran and so polished away in the culturally preferred preparation by refining. By engineering the staple crop to produce available vitamin, the researchers potentially neatly solved a major malnutrition problem.
There were plenty of issues, including the creation of a free use license by companies owning the intellectual property, but the interesting one for me is the general resistance to introduction of a genetically engineered crop. Greenpeace for instance has been resistant to introduction of the rice, apparently because it would the the thin edge of a wedge and open the floodgates to an undesirable technology. But I suspect that a large proportion of the general population would vote against its introduction. How much understanding of what was done to genetically engineer the rice would they have? Many would be alarmed by change that they don’t understand and fearful of unforeseen consequences. They might also be offended by loss of purity in a natural food.
How can we as a society decide on these things? Much as I’m a proponent for as much science education as possible, there’s just too much to learn unless you have the time and interest. I think this is a fundamental question for us now. We are advancing at tremendous pace with technology and medicine but not with our general understanding of science.
I’d love to hear any comments or answers you have.