Genetic Engineering: A Challenge for Engineers Engineering: A Challenge for Engineers by Robert L. Manning, New York Beta ’49 HE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE discussed in this article—transgenic

SPRING 2002 T H E B E N T O F T A U B E T A P I 33

Genetic Engineering:A Challenge for Engineersby Robert L. Manning, New York Beta ’49

HE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE discussed inthis article—transgenic biotechnology— isvitally important and very complex. It hasgenerated heated controversy and some ex-treme reactions on both sides of the issue. Thepowerful biotechnology frequently referred toas “genetic engineering” deserves the atten-

tion of engineers; there are serious questionssurrounding its widespread application, particularly inthe case of products of transgenic biotechnology, thetransfer of genes between species. Naming this process“engineering” is, in my view, entirely inappropriate anda misreading of the true nature of that profession.

Engineering, as I believe most engineers understandand practice it, involves the carefully calculated, respon-sible application of well-understood principles in accor-dance with established public and professional standardsto produce results that are both safe and beneficial tosociety. It may be conventional or innovative, but theindividual engineer is always accountable for the resultsof his or her work. None of these criteria seems to applyto biotechnology using direct genetic manipulation tocreate new life forms based on the discoveries of geneticscience.

Anyone who has tried to introduce, almost anywherein the United States, a new, better but unconventionalbuilding construction material, whether an improvedfastener or an innovative structural panel system (myown experience), is aware of the extensive and rigoroustesting and certification requirements that must be metbefore the new product can be used in buildings. Whileimposing such requirements arguably slows the pace ofinnovation, it is unquestionably a major reason whybuildings in this country are among the safest in theworld.

No such system of required testing and certificationis in place for the introduction on farms and in marketsof new food crops or meats from organisms modified bydirect transfer of genetic material to express specificproperties intended as improvements over the proper-ties of the original food product.

The plant and animal products of modern biotechnol-ogy already introduced or being studied for introductioninto foods and the natural environment are identifiablydifferent from any previously existing organism. Theycould not have been produced using traditional breedingtechniques developed by man (and evolutionary nature)over the centuries. Neither could they have been cre-

ated using more modern plant or animal hybridizationmethods.

The opposition to the introduction of geneticallymodified organisms into foods and the environmentcomes from diverse groups—from scientists with de-tailed technical knowledge and experience in this fieldwho are concerned about the potential for ecologicaldisaster, to parents worried about the possible effects ofgenetically modified foods on the health of their chil-dren.

The biotechnology industry has mobilized its consid-erable resources to defend the technology and its prod-ucts. There seems, however, to be a striking inconsis-tency in the past and present positions of the industry.Pharmaceutical companies for years argued vehementlyagainst the concept of “generic equivalence” of thera-peutic products marketed by other companies—genericmanufacturers—after an original patent had expired.

They took this position even when chemical andphysical testing showed the patented and generic prod-ucts to be essentially identical. The companies holdingthe original patents argued, with some logic it seemedthen, that such testing was not adequate to demonstratethe safety or efficacy of the unpatented generic productand was much less rigorous than the testing requiredbefore the original patent holder could market the drug.

Today the same or related organizations appear to bedevoting similar energy and resources to argue a contraryposition. The producers and marketers of genetically modi-fied, patented products claim that their products are“equivalent” to the original (unpatented, of course) plantsor animals, and therefore extensive testing for long-termeffects should not be required to demonstrate that theyare safe for human consumption and introduction into thenatural environment, or even that they are effective indoing what was intended.

The assumption seems to go something like this: “If itlooks like corn, and we call it corn, it’s corn and will besafe and act like corn when released in the environmentand ingested by humans” (even though no such plantever existed). This article presents the dangers in suchan assumption and offers ideas for needed regulation ofbiotechnology products.

During the past few years, I have asked questions ofhighly qualified people working in the field and ex-changed with them ideas on the subject. Some of thesepeople strongly favor the widespread application of thistechnology, but others believe that it presents unaccept

t

BENT_p33.feat/Manning 3/13/02, 11:48 AM33

34 SPRING 2002 T H E B E N T O F TA U B E TA P I

record of the deliberations leading to the decision topromote the use of this far-reaching new technology.

There is strong private industrial motivation to pro-mote wide application of the technology. Large manufac-turers and feed companies, in their search for growthand enhanced profits, are actively promoting dissemina-tion of the technology and its products—at considerableexpense and without malicious intent. The momentumhas grown rapidly, with programs by multinational com-panies focusing their efforts particularly on the intro-duction of transgenic crops in the developing world.

They are joined in these efforts by some well-inten-tioned not-for-profit foundations and individuals whohave been convinced that the technology is an effectiveway to deal with hunger in the poorest nations.

Experts familiar with all aspects of this serious andmany-faceted problem or world hunger make a contraryargument—that introduction of genetically modifiedpatented crops will destroy traditional agriculture andcreate even more suffering for the people of these impover-ished lands. And they point to many other ways to attackthe tragic problem of hungry families in the third world. Afew of these alternatives are mentioned below.

The anticipated profitability of the technology, whichunderlies the push for its rapid dissemination, is basedon genetic patents that the Supreme Court has ruled areallowable. This decision has generated some contro-versy, and there is a possibility that it may some day bereviewed by the court. For the present, it makes thefield very attractive to private capital investment.

Both the private efforts and those of our governmentignore the real possibility that widespread introductionof transgenic organisms will cause harm far greater thanany benefits it may bring. Tradeoffs of costs and benefitsare not unique to biotechnology; new technologies al-ways carry risks. In this case the technology is far-reaching and powerful in its effects, which may well beirreversible.

The issue is too far-reaching and complex to allow theprospect of important gains to distract us from the needto understand the risks and potential costs, even if theyare difficult to express in accounting terms. At thisstage, the scientific knowledge is still rudimentary, thenet gains in agricultural productivity and the potentialprofits are both uncertain, and the health and environ-mental risks are little understood. Testing to determinethe long-term consequences for human health and envi-ronmental damage has been virtually non-existent.

It is likely that most Americans are not aware of theextent of the planting of genetically modified crops inthe U.S. because it has happened with little fanfare,except in the cases where problems have made news.One widely reported case is the accidental contamina-tion of flour used in tacos and other food products byStarlink corn, which had been approved only for animalfeed. This resulted in a recall of the grain, flour, and foodproducts and in payments both to farmers who hadgrown the modified corn and to others whose fields werecontaminated, probably by pollen drift. The cost to

able environmental and human health risks. I’ve alsodone considerable reading of the extensive material onthe subject, particularly in relation to the potential forenvironmental damage.

The opinions offered here also reflect my chemicalengineering education and my experience in manage-ment of pharmaceutical and chemical manufacturingoperations and engineering projects in the UnitedStates and internationally. I believe that the ideas pre-sented are reasonable and sound, but the reader mustmake that judgment.

THE ROLE OF THE ENGINEERMost engineers consider themselves problem solvers,and genetic “engineering” can present serious problems;at best it raises important questions. Engineering itselfwill not directly provide the answers, but engineers canbe influential in finding solutions. A great deal of infor-mation and opinion is available on both the technical andpublic-policy aspects of transgenic biotechnology. Ifengineers will inform themselves about the issue andbring their rigorous technical education, analyticalskills, and problem-solving drive to the policy debate,they can make valuable contributions to the decision-making process.

Active participation by well-informed individuals inthe debate on issues such as this, with potentially im-mense consequences for our own well being and that offuture generations, is more than ever essential. I believethat such individual initiatives are indispensable if weare to maintain and strengthen our representative de-mocracy as a viable system for ourselves and a beaconand model of hope for the rest of the world.

Perhaps this article will encourage some readers toextend their knowledge and understanding of the issueand draw their own conclusions about the global intro-duction of this powerful and, as it seems to me, ex-tremely risky technology.

INTRODUCTION OF GENETICALLY MODIFIEDORGANISMS INTO THE ENVIRONMENTGlobal introduction of organisms and products emergingfrom transgenic biotechnology is being strongly pro-moted in the U.S. and internationally by the biotech andfeed industries. The previous and present administra-tions have seen this program as being in our nationalinterest and have promoted it. We have applied consid-erable pressure in urging global acceptance, arguingthat any attempt by other nations to limit or controlimportation of products resulting from application of thetechnology would be an unacceptable barrier to freeinternational trade.

Transgenic biotechnology and its potential applicationnot only to plants but to animals, including humans,raises extremely difficult and profound ethical, social,and economic questions that require extensive publicairing and debate. The government’s supportive policyseems to have been established without adequate publicdiscussion, and to my knowledge there is no public



Aventis, the seed producer, apparently ran into thehundreds-of-millions of dollars, and the incident causedcorn exports and U.S corn prices to drop in the U.S.market.

Another case that received media and public atten-tion was a small laboratory study at the University ofMichigan that indicated that corn containing the gene ofthe bacterium Bacillus thuringensis (Bt) might producepollen toxic to monarch butterflies feeding on milkweedreceiving pollen from nearby corn fields. Subsequentstudies by the USDA found monarchs are more sensi-tive to some Bt corn types than others and that, al-though there is a chance that while pollen from one ofthe early types of Bt corn might present a hazard to thebutterflies under field conditions, this type was plantedin only a small percentage of fields and would be en-tirely phased out by 2003.

If nothing else is clear about these cases, they doillustrate some of the difficulties in controlling thespread of genetically modified genes once they are re-leased into the market or the natural environment, andthey demonstrate the unintended consequences likely toaccompany the introduction of new technologies.

By the year 2000, large areas were planted withtransgenic crops. For three of our most important com-mercial crops, one-fifth of the corn, one-half of the soy-bean crop, and three-fourths of the country’s cottonplantings used genetically modified seed.

Other crops that have been genetically modified andapproved for planting include canola, potatoes, squash,sugarbeets and tomatoes. The intent of the insertion ofgenes from other plant species, bacteria, or viruses intothe genomes of these plants has generally been to in-crease resistance to pests, raise tolerance to pesticides,or increase market value.

These goals are also the subject of controversy. Oneof the most serious issues is the strong likelihood thatwidespread use of transgenics will result in more rapiddevelopment of resistant strains of the pest that themodified plant is intended to resist. This would generatethe need for greater pesticide use (not the goal!) or theneed for more and/or multiple genetic modifications.

Widespread resistance to the Bt toxin produced bysome approved strains of modified corn and potatoeswould also deprive organic farmers of the most effectiveand widely used pesticide available to them for the fewbut critical times they have need to spray using the Btbacterium itself. Organic farmers have a small, butgrowing, role in world agriculture and a growing cus-tomer base in the U.S.

For a concise listing of approved crops, see the fol-lowing table prepared by the Union of Concerned Scien-tists and reprinted with permission from thatorganization.

Genetic modification of other food plant species isunder study in biotech laboratories, and animal speciesare also being researched for genetic modification andpossible future commercial introduction. A geneticallymodified and patented species of salmon with more

rapid growth to larger size is presently under review bythe Food and Drug Administration.

In this case there have been serious questions raisedby a diverse range of environmental scientists, activistgroups, and some of those engaged in commercial fishingabout the risks to the natural salmon population of acci-dental release into the ocean of such salmon, intendedfor aquaculture in confined “fish farms.” Other species offish—carp, trout, and tilapia—are being studied foruseful genetic modification, raising similar questions ofaccidental release into the natural environment.

UNIQUE HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISKSSome concerns go far beyond international trade orother economic issues. Many competent scientists, whoare not influenced by direct or indirect dependence onthe industries promoting the technology, believe that itswidespread introduction is premature and presentsextremely serious and largely unquantifiable risks toboth human health and the natural environment. Theysee it as a radical departure from the traditional agricul-tural breeding practices that have depended on hybrid-ization of plants and domestic animals for improvementof productivity and the introduction of desirable traits.

Some biotechnology advocates claim that the resultsof direct introduction of genes from one species into thegenome of another are predictable. They seem to beassuming full understanding of the function of the trans-planted gene and conclude that the results of transgenicintroduction are therefore predictable. The assumptionof full understanding of gene function is contrary to theopinions of other scientists in the field.

These scientists argue that we have only limitedunderstanding of the function of specific genes in theoriginal organism and that, furthermore, individualgenes transferred to another species and acting in con-cert with the other genes of the new genome can haveunpredictable consequences, considering our presentknowledge. It is also proving difficult, if not impossible,to prevent or control the spread of the genetically modi-fied organisms after they are introduced into the field.As a result, ecologists are concerned about the effects ofinteraction of these new organisms with cultivated orwild species—food crops or weeds.

Perhaps the most serious of the risks from wide-spread application of transgenic biotechnology is irre-versible disruption of the Earth’s biosphere—theintricate web of interdependent life forms and processeson which human well being and all life depend. Theseecological systems, including the genetic structures ofall living organisms, have evolved and mutually adaptedto slow changes in the planetary environment overthree- to four-billion years. The biosphere today is theresult of this unimaginably long and seemingly miraculousprocess. Its functioning is only minimally understood, evenafter the great scientific advances of recent years.

Despite what can be described only as a state of deepand inevitable ignorance about the organisms and pro-cesses that constitute the ecology of our planet, we are



Genetically Engineered CropsAllowed in the U.S. Food Supply

NOTES: All crops listed above required adetermination from the U.S. Department ofAgriculture that they were not plant pests underthe Federal Plant Pest Act.1. Bt crops, in addition to USDA regulation,

were approved by the EnvironmentalProtection Agency under the FederalInsecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Actand the Federal Food, Drug, and CosmeticAct.

2. Before most of the herbicide-resistant cropscould enter the food supply, EPA registeredthe herbicide for use on the new crop.Sulfonylurea-resistant flax is the exceptionbecause the herbicide is not to be sprayedon the crop. Sulfonylurea-resistant flax is tobe planted only in soils containing sulfony-lurea residues.

CANOLA

Aventis, Monsanto• Resist glufosinate, glyphosate, herbicides to control weeds;

altered for high lauric acid for soap and food products

• Bacteria, virus, Arabidopsis, Calif. bay, turnip rape

ROUNDUP READY 2000, LAURICAL 1995, UNNAMED 2000

CORN

Aventis, Dow-Mycogen, DuPont-Pioneer, Hi-Bred-Monsanto, DeKalb, Syngenta• Resist glufosinate herbicide to control weeds; male sterile to

facilitate hybridization; Bt toxin to control insect pests

(European corn borer); male sterile to facilitate hybridization

• Corn, bacteria, virus, arabidopsis, potato

SEEDLINK, LIBERTYLINK, STARLINK 1998,NATUREGARD

1995, HERCULEX I 2001, BT-XTRA 1997, YIELDGARD 1996,

ROUNDUP READY 1998, BT11 1996, KNOCK OUT 1998

COTTON

Monsanto-Aventis• Resist bromoxynil herbicide to control weeds; Bt toxin to

control insect pests (cotton bollworms and tobacco budworm);

resist glyphosate herbicide to control weeds

• Arabidopsis, bacteria, virus

BXN COTTON 1995, BOLLGARD 1995, ROUNDUP READY

1996

3. Although not required, all products were thesubject of voluntary consultations with the(FDA) about food safety. FDA requiredlabeling of two products —-canola andsoybean with altered oils—because theagency considered the oils to be significantlydifferent from nonengineered canola and soyoil. The required labels do not divulge thatthe oils were obtained from geneticallyengineered crops.

4. To the extent they are known, the chart liststrade names or company designations forcrops at the time they finished the regula-tory process. Once a crop is commercializedand licensed to other companies, it may besold under many other names.

5. Not all crops allowed on the market arecurrently for sale. In some cases, engi-neered crops, such as the FlavrSavrtomato and StarLink corn, may no longerbe available commercially.

SOURCES: Websites of USDA atwww.aphis.usda.gov/bbep/bp/index.html; EPA atwww.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/; FDA atvm.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/biocon.html; communica-tions with agency staff and company representa-tives; Federal Register notices; and agencydocuments on individual crops. Revised June2001 (Table created by the Union of ConcernedScientists, and reprinted with permission afterbeing condensed by author).

POTATO

Monsanto• Bt toxin to control insect pests (Colorado potato

beetle); resist potato virus Y

• Bacteria, virus

NEWLEAF 1995, NEW LEAF PLUS 1998, NEWLEAF Y

1999

SOYBEAN

Aventis, DuPont , Monsanto• Resist glufosinate herbicide to control weeds; altered

oil (high oleic acid) to increase stability; reduce

polyunsaturated fatty acids

• Soybean, bean, bacteria, virus

ROUNDUP READY AND OTHERS 1995-98

TOMATO (CHERRY)

Agritope, Calgene, DNA Plant Technology,Monsanto, PetoSeed, Zeneca• Altered ripening to enhance fresh market value; thicker

skin and altered pectin to enhance processing value

• Tomato, bacteria, virus

FLAVRSAVR 1994, ENDLESS SUMMER 1995, OTHERS

PRODUCT/CROP

Institution(s)• Engineered Trait(s)

• Sources of New Genes

NAME(S)



allowing optimism about potential benefits, anticipationof economic gain, and our limitations of imagination andwill to put at risk this intricately balanced system. Thelong-term consequences for human life on Earth areunpredictable—and perhaps unimaginable.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK AND PRECAUTIONSIn the absence of effective new legislation defining clearand coordinated responsibilities for regulating the intro-duction of products of this revolutionary technology,each regulatory agency—the Food and Drug Adminis-tration (FDA), Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), and Department of Agriculture (USDA)—triesto deal independently with the aspects identified asfalling within its jurisdiction under existing legislation.

The FDA has been directed to develop labeling regu-lations for foods containing products of modern biotech-nology. To date, the agency’s approach has been to studythe issue, and the studying continues. The agency hasthus far been unwilling to require labeling of food prod-ucts containing the products of transgenic biotechnol-ogy. The FDA assumes that direct genetic manipulationor insertion of foreign genes into a food crop plant doesnot generally and of itself create a new product. Theagency has invited producers to take part in a voluntarylabeling and safety consultation program. But, no proofof safety or efficacy is required from the developers ofthe technology. This approach contrasts sharply withthe rigorous requirements placed on the testing andapproval of pharmaceutical products.

The absence of labeling leaves consumers unaware ofthe presence of genetically modified products in thefoods they buy. The voluntary program and the lack oftesting requirements are dangerous deficiencies in theFDA’s approach. As a result, there is no way to be cer-tain that transgenic foods will not create serious healthproblems for Americans, who are dependent upon theagency to assure that their food is safe.

Until recently the EPA has provided no clear regula-tory role, policy, or plan of action in relation totransgenic crop introductions, even though this is theagency charged with protection of the natural environ-ment. And the USDA continues to approve geneticallymodified crops as though they were no different fromthe products of traditional breeding practices, with onlyineffective requirements to isolate the modified strainsto avoid contamination of neighboring crops or wildplants.

There is no required testing for long-term environ-mental impact. Given the complexity of the naturalenvironment and our present state of scientific igno-rance, there may indeed be no tests known at this timethat can adequately ensure against disaster caused bywidespread introduction of this radical new technology.

Even a small probability of irreversible damage tothe interdependent systems and processes that make upthe Earth’s biosphere should be enough to demand ex-treme caution in the introduction of a new technology.This has not been the position of the present or previous

administration or the Congress. I believe that thisamounts to a drastic failure of governance.

Our government’s efforts to build cooperative andproductive relationships with business organizationsand to promote international trade are laudable andconsistent with its responsibilities. This does not justifythe abandonment of other even more fundamental re-sponsibilities. The primary responsibility of the federalgovernment is to safeguard the well being of the Ameri-can people. In the case of this powerful technology, itmeans avoiding unnecessarily risking the safety andhealth not only of Americans, but of people all over theworld now and in the future, and of the natural environ-ment on which human well being ultimately depends.

Recently, apparently in recognition of the interna-tional importance of this issue, its complexity, and thecontroversy surrounding it and the U.S. position, theEPA and USDA sponsored a conference of the interna-tional Organization for Economic Cooperation and De-velopment (OECD). This organization of 30 industrialdemocracies committed to a market economy met inRaleigh, NC, in December 2001. (A draft report of thismeeting is available on the website listed in the Sourcessection below.)

The report reflects the wide diversity of views in theinternational community of industrial nations and makesclear how difficult it will be for the nations of the worldto agree on a common policy. Ultimately, global agree-ment on at least the fundamental issues will be vital.The draft report lists many areas of general agreementand only three “outstanding issues,” but when readcarefully, it is clear that they are fundamental, especiallythe issues dealt with in paragraph 63.

“63. While there is general agreement that scientificknowledge is essential for risk assessment and manage-ment, debates continue on the necessary scope anddetail of such knowledge and how the risk frameworkmight best deal with uncertainty. Discussion also con-tinues about whether a generic approach to risk as-sessment might be explored for certain applications.

64. One of the unresolved issues is whether concernsabout uncertainty should be applied primarily to newtechnologies and LMOs [living modified organisms] orshould also be applied to conventional crops.

65. Many of the safety principles that guide debate overLMOs have been developed in fields such as chemicaland nuclear safety. While these areas are a majorsource of information and experience, it is not clearthe extent to which the lessons are truly applicable toLMOs.”

We cannot wait for 30 countries to agree; Americashould initiate effective action now to reduce the likeli-hood of health and environmental damage from invasiveand little-understood transgenic biotechnology. At thesame time, we need to develop alternative policies andprograms to deal with third-world hunger and its under-lying causes.



HUNGER IN THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Our intensive campaign to convince other nations thatfree-trade principles require them to accept our geneti-cally modified crops and seed seems improper and dan-gerous. Many, including some leaders of developingnations who are almost certainly influenced by the pro-motional campaigns of the biotech industry and ourgovernment, have come to believe that this technologyoffers the only solution to hunger in the third world.This conclusion is unwarranted, even if modern biotech-nology were not such a serious health and environmen-tal risk. There are many underused and far less riskyapproaches to solving the critical global problem ofhunger—among them:

• Further development and global dissemination ofconventional and sustainable agricultural prac-tices.

• Economic aid, including direct emergency ship-ments of food when and where needed, as well aseconomic incentive programs and technical andscientific support to developing countries from thewealthy nations. These steps would include im-provement of food-distribution channels in third-world countries where hunger is endemic. Thiswould be combined with:

• Increased support by the industrial democraciesfor democratic institutions, public education, andhuman and civil rights in countries where they arenot firmly established. Political development ofthis kind is essential to achieve stability and ulti-mately eliminate the root causes of poverty andhunger. It is clear that nations without stabledemocratic institutions have great difficulty re-solving their own economic, social, and politicalproblems and are a source of international instabil-ity. In these conditions, the heaviest burden ofhunger and suffering almost always falls on thosemost impoverished.

Actions along these lines could begin immediately toalleviate the problem of third-world hunger and in timeto eliminate it. They present none of the huge health andenvironmental risks that in our present state of knowl-edge inevitably accompany the widespread and growingintroduction of genetically modified organisms.

We need to end the present rush to the radical, dan-gerous, and unnecessary deployment of transgenic bio-technology. It is unrealistic and dangerous to rely, as weseem to have done thus far, on untested claims of long-term benefits from this technology and assurances of itssafety from both the same industries that profit fromthe technology and from scientists who may be influ-enced by dependence on those industries.

AN EFFECTIVE REGULATORY POLICYFOR TRANSGENICSOn this vital issue, as with so many others in today’sworld, this most powerful and wealthy country mustlead the way. What seems to be urgently needed is acomprehensive, government-sponsored review of theissue. This could be initiated by naming a broad-basedpanel of highly competent scientists, including leadingexperts from other countries, who have no direct orindirect personal connection to the biotech and feedindustries or other conflict of interest.

During the review period, I believe that there shouldbe a global moratorium on any introduction of new prod-ucts of transgenic biotechnology—and withdrawal to theextent possible of products already introduced. Thescientific panel would be charged with developing andpresenting to the Congress and the Administration, asexpeditiously as is possible for such a complex matter:

1) A comprehensive analysis and assessment of thetechnology and its potential benefits and risks; and

2) A program of safety testing to protect the environ-ment and human health from possible long-termnegative effects of the new technology. This testingwould presumably be required before introduction ofgenetically modified organisms or products of suchorganisms into the marketplace and the environ-ment. If scientific knowledge at this time is inad-equate to develop a detailed program, the panelwould define the purpose, principles, and criteria foran adequate testing program.

The initial panel could then be expanded into one ormore working groups charged with recommending thesubstantive content of new legislation. The expandedgroup(s) would include other major stakeholders, includ-ing individuals involved in the industrial production andmarketing of the transgenic foods and products contain-ing them. The groups would also include consumers,large-scale and family-farm operators, large- and small-scale food manufacturers, and others in the food produc-tion and distribution chain.

In view of the far-ranging implications of this technol-ogy, the group(s) might invite the participation of ethicists,religious leaders, academics, and practitioners in otherdisciplines who would ensure deep and broad considerationof this extremely complex issue. Building on the findings ofthe scientific panel, these broader groups would developguidelines for future use of the technology.

I believe that with scientifically sound recommenda-tions in hand the government must then act promptlyand vigorously to establish an effective legislativeframework. This cannot be dealt with as a partisan is-sue. If the Administration and the Congress would acttogether, using the best available scientific knowledgeand their own good and conscientious individual judg-ment, they would have the support of the vast majorityof Americans. They would accomplish a great service forthe American people and human beings everywhere.



Robert L. Manning, New York Beta ’49,received his degree in chemical engineeringfrom Syracuse University in 1949. He workedfor more than 20 years in various manufac-turing and engineering management positionsin the pharmaceutical industry with Merckand Pfizer International, as well as withShawinigan Resins Corporation in themanufacture of vinyl polymers. The assign-ments included 10 years of in-residence workin Brazil, Mexico, and Japan. Bob retired assenior vice president of Stetson Harza, anarchitectural/engineering firm in Utica, NY, in1991, after an 18-year second career. He now devotes a considerable amountof his energy to an issue he considers vitallyimportant, the environmental sustainability ofour national and public policies. Other, moreimmediately rewarding activities includeworking with family members to try to bringtheir family farm in upstate New York backinto sustainable production and following,with his wife Betty, the diverse activities andinterests of their children and grandchildren.

ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIONBEYOND TRANSGENICSWe need to recognize that some of our own personal atti-tudes and national policies seem environmentally recklessand irresponsible. Our waste of nonrenewable naturalresources and our grossly inefficient use of energy arepractices more deeply entrenched than the use oftransgenic biotechnology, and they pose equally fundamen-tal environmental threats. In recent years we’ve becomeincreasingly aware of the dangers inherent in these prac-tices and better informed on those dangers, but we are farfrom translating that knowledge into effective action.

America has amply demonstrated the strength andvitality of our form of representative democracy as ithas evolved over more than two centuries. It has longbeen a model and a beacon of hope for ordinary peopleeverywhere. It still is. But the power of modern technol-ogy to upset the Earth’s ecology means that we have togo beyond the promise of liberty and justice and eco-nomic opportunity for all. To be a viable model for therest of the world, we must be sure that our actions as anation are environmentally sustainable. Today theyalmost certainly are not.

It is even more urgent to acknowledge the loomingrisk of environmental catastrophe when developingnations, or even the two-billion citizens of China andIndia together, seriously begin to emulate Americanpatterns of consumption. That process is already wellunderway. We must ensure that our political leaders

REFERENCESMany of the issues discussed in this article are covered in the publicationsand websites of environmental organizations in which I have considerableconfidence. Two that have focused significant attention on biotechnologyare:

• Union of Concerned Scientists (www.ucsusa.org/index.html)and

• Sierra Club (www.sierraclub.org/biotech/—the July/Augustissue of its publication Sierra highlighted “geneticengineering”).

Biotechnology developments reported in publications such as Natureand Scientific American are often well covered, along with other biotech-nology news, in a few U.S. newspapers, among them The Wall StreetJournal and The New York Times. There is frequent press coverage on thissubjcet in other countries, including Canada, England, India, and NewZealand.

An interesting forum for the exchange of ideas on biotechnology isconducted by Harvard University at: www.cid. harvard.edu/cidbiotech/comments.

Other sites that tend to reflect primarily the positions of the bio-technology industry or environmental or GM-free food advocates can befound easily by interested Internet surfers.

Worldwatch Institute, an environmental research and publishingorganization based in Washington, DC, is a valuable source of reliableinformation and data on a wide range of environmental issues. Therehave been short items on developments in agricultural biotechnology asrecently as the Jan./Feb. 2002 issue of its publication, WorldwatchMagazine.

OECD conducted an international conference on this issue inDecember 2001. The Rapporteur’s Report is at www1.oecd.org/ehs/raleigh/report0412.htm.

face this problem and move now to deal with this globalreality. Environmental sustainability must be a clearand primary goal of American policy—and be reflectedin all of our actions. Today it certainly is not.

The attacks of September 11 have understandablydiverted the attention of Americans and our govern-ment from many important issues. But we must find thewill and the means to deal effectively with every seriousenvironmental challenge. If we do not, who will bearresponsibility for the global health and environmentaldisasters resulting from our inaction and our ill-consid-ered and mistaken decisions?


Documents

Genetic Engineering: A Challenge for Engineers Engineering: A Challenge for Engineers by Robert L. Manning, New York Beta ’49 HE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE discussed in this article—transgenic