Blue Roses with Lemon Scent
The 20th century gave to mankind many new technologies, which brought
a lot of new problems. One of them is genetic engineering. Recently students of the MSU
faculty of Biology were invited to take part in the discussion “Genetic Modification
(GM): Pro and Con. Blue Roses or Genetic Hazards?”. Here you can read what they said.
As you will notice, all the materials of today’s page are written by students of only
one faculty. Therefore they deserved our prize – a free three-months’ subscription to
“English” newspaper. We invite you and your classmates to do the same. If your school
or faculty creates a whole page, it wins the same prize.
So, don’t forget to write to us – and you won’t have to wait long for a reward.
Brave new absence of real problems?
I keep picturing to myself an aristocratic lady, who has never traveled
by subway and can’t stand walking on sand barefoot. I imagine how she, sipping her
morning cafe au lait, all of a sudden fancies having roses that would smell of her
favorite Kenzo perfume in the back-yard of her villa in the south of France. However,
catching a glimpse into the future, I can state for sure that such a caprice sounds
absolutely immoral. For, making it come true, genetic engineers should spend (not to say
‘waste’) their time and energy – to satisfy a zany desire of some hysterical
creature (who we by default still call a human being) instead of turning to obstacles and
tragedies of people all over the globe.
None of us must forget we’re living in this cruel world of motley rebellious graffiti,
desperate junkies, nightmarish wars and over-polluted oceans. Day in and day out people
choke when breathing the air full of carbon dioxide and dust – while so called great
scientists are puzzling over the idea of making a rose blue. Fish die from mercury
poisoning, which threatens both people and nature – meantime farmers are thinking of
having totally identical trees on their plantations to make them look “elite”.
I can assume that both energy and talents of genetic engineers could serve appropriate
ends. I understand only very well that none of us is equal to God and we are utterly
unable to radically change anything. Still, we might well start taking certain steps
towards making the world better than it is – partly, by correcting our own mistakes. And
genetic engineering may well serve this purpose.
To somehow console the above-criticized lady, I would like to stress that in some cases
Mother Nature is the best designer, for no synthetic smell could ever replace the genuine
smell of roses.
By Elena Aliper
“We ought to be wise in our choice”
The 21st century has just begun. Just two years ago we were all in the
20th century. We dreamt about our future: some of us were afraid of uncertainty of the
millenium, some were waiting for the End of the World. But, as Eleanor Roosevelt said,
‘the future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams’. Now we are
children of the 21st century. Let’s think what has really happened in our world and what
we should be prepared for.
I think, we can agree that at the end of the 20th century the age of biology arrived –
to be more exact, the age of molecular biology. Now we cannot only watch the biochemical
processes in a cell but also regulate them. A new brave world is open to us now!
Unfortunately, the end of the 20th century brought many problems as well. Human health, on
the whole, worsened. AIDS and many hereditary diseases loomed up in our life. The number
of newborn children with various pathologies outnumbers healthy ones – a horrific
tendency!
Another problem is a demographic one. The poorest countries’ populations increase
rapidly, whereas in most rich countries the death-rate is higher than that of birth rate.
The process of rich countries becoming richer and richer and poor ones – poorer and
poorer accompanies this.
We have to find a way out of this situation. Is the advent of genetic modification the
only means to save our population? The problem is being discussed everywhere and by
everybody: scientists and housewives, grown-ups and teen-agers, journalists and
politicians – all of them having their particular point of view. Just listen:
“Only by using GM food can we find a decent escape for future generations! The Earth’s
resources are too limited for its constantly increasing population. In order to survive,
we should totally change our approach to nature.”
“We have no right to change anything in the environment. We are animals too – like
insects or birds are; so, why do we have the right to influence nature? Genetics will
change our world to such vast a degree that everything will die. Therefore, all the
experiments, including those not conceived yet, should be out-of-bounds”.
Some opinions are based on religion. There are a lot of religions, most of them ancient
cultural phenomena – and GM creations appeared in our world just a few years ago.
What to do then? First of all, one should realize that “biologists” are not
“magicians”: science’s real possibilities are often lower than those announced in
the mass media.
Nevertheless, biology is developing rapidly, very soon there may be a kind of biological
revolution resulting in global world changes – we should be ready for everything.
And last but, as usual, not least… Experimenting in a lab, writing an article for a
newspaper, voting in an election, in the end, one should think of possible consequences.
Being Homo sapiens means being responsible for our activity and thoughts – in that case
we could be calm about the future of our world.
By Xenia Astanina
GM: Pro and Con. Blue Roses or Genetic Hazards?
Two or three decades ago it was really hard to imagine we would be able
to easily manipulate the plant genome to get exactly what we want. Having been achieved
today, these great opportunities raise a large number of problems, which are not small.
The main problem with genome manipulations is that we cannot control all the biochemical
processes and reactions, simply because plant biochemistry still has many “white
spots”.
Even less is known about the functions of genes in a plant organism.
It’s now absolutely clear that nothing in a living cell is simple, and that each gene is
involved in a sophisticated pattern of biochemical and genetic interactions. So the
results of artificial genetic changes, even minor alterations, are hardly predictable. And
here is the rub.
Some scientists are really worried about the possible consequences of such experiments. No
one can secure us against drastically dreadful mutants, tending to destroy humans as a
species, in spite of the infinitesimal probability of such an event. Even so, it should be
taken into consideration.
Yes, ‘serious’ debates held by housewives about dreadful monsters and genetic hazards
can cause nothing but a smile. The GM problem is much deeper though.
Although ecological awareness is growing rapidly nowadays, very little is still known
about the complicated interactions of different species in ecosystems. The introduction of
new species (especially GM ones) into an ecosystem results in rough disturbance of the
latter – almost every time.
The thing we are trying to experiment on is the result of a very long evolution
evolutionary road – could it be called the path of trial and error? It is difficult to
enumerate all the surprises that occur during genetic experiments. This does not mean
however, that they should be stopped. Only deep thinking and absolute accuracy can lead us
to blue roses and the lemon-scented lawn.
By Vyacheslav Makarenko
GM Food: To be or not to be?
The development of science not only brings great opportunities to
humankind but also gives rise to numerous discussions and contradictions about this or
that discovery or investigation – as happened with genetically modified food.
In developing countries, a million of kids die and a million more go blind every year
because they don’t get enough vitamin A. Researchers have found a way to enrich rice
(the staple food in many parts of the developing world) with beta carotene (which is
converted in the body to vitamin A) by inserting genes from a daffodil and some bacterium.
Though we can give lots of other examples proving the necessity of GM products, the idea
of gene transplanting makes environmental and health activists panic – “Green
Peace”, for example, calls GM food “biological pollution”.
Opposition to GM products is largely based on the concern that non-modified plants could
be forever changed when exposed to pollen from altered crops. Though many researchers have
subsequently shown the risk to be minimal, in Europe GM goods have been banned under the
pressure of biotechnology opponents, such as Jeremy Rifkin.
Thus, progress in one of the most promising branches of science can be slowed down and
lots of significant innovations put on hold because of the opposition to agricultural
genetic engineering organized by activists and politicians with doubtful intentions and
without biological grounding.
By Xenia Beyrahova
The Ill-Informed Society
Genetics now is not only a field of science. Genetic engineering,
cloning, genetic pollution, GM crops have become burning issues of the day, discussed in
press and on TV as widely as terrorism, nuclear pollution, global warming.
Obviously, there are two problems concerning relations between scientists and society.
Unfortunately, the “green” movement in many cases has become a commercial affair,
rather than an ecological one. Many pseudo-ecologists make their career, profiting from
common people’s ignorance – though most of their activity is delivering speeches.
Society’s being ill-informed in the biological fields is the second problem which faces
scientists today. I was deeply impressed while watching a few talk shows concerning
cloning, genetic engineering etc. I am afraid I would not be able to repeat all the absurd
ideas (“army of clones” etc.) expressed there. Some people like such shows, however,
because it is always amusing to watch people discussing items they are unaware of, using
terms they don’t understand, unsuccessfully trying to look like specialists. But the
problem is that public opinion is shaped by such TV shows, articles and interview
regularly appearing in press – even in rather serious papers. The result is the people
in the street trust so-called ‘experts’ – politicians, economists, and public
figures – but not real scientists working on these problems.
The real thing to be done to avoid making a clown of a serious fundamental science – is
to let scientists “explain themselves”. I’m afraid, though, that it will fall on
deaf ears, because quasi-scientific ideas will always be a sensation.
By Elena Nazarenko
Some Pessimistic Questions
The idea of blue roses and plants’ resistance to diseases is pretty
attractive. We shouldn’t be too optimistic, though. We are only one of the species
living on this planet and natural laws are not canceled for us. We are quick thinkers, it
is true; but we often prefer first to do and then to think; there are a lot of notorious
examples of such succession. Once it was a very good idea to grow rabbits and sheep in
Australia, wasn’t it? But the ecosystem was so specific on the continent that such a
disturbance brought a lot of problems difficult to solve.
I believe it will not be so easy to use GM plants and animals. They could require special
treatment; they could be more expensive than natural ones. Some of them are even
unnecessary: do we really need blue roses? Are red ones so bad? Will we manage to prevent
GM species from rivaling wild ones? All species try to get used to new conditions.
Couldn’t it happen that with the appearance of GM plants our beautiful plants will turn
horrible pests – like lianas – and squirrels will become terrifying carnivores?
Being God-like creatures we are quite close to great power to change both our life and
nature, as we want to. But we should not exercise this power like savages use the gun.
What’s the point of calling yourself homo sapiens and not being one?
By Lyudmila Zinevitch
|