Why I am “pro GM”

Genetic Modification is a useful and safe way to produce crop varieties

There is a great deal of controversy about the use of what is known as Genetic Modification for use in the production of crop varieties. A lot of passion is on show from both sides of the debate, which is unfortunate because, I believe, most people with an interest in this area have a lot of overlapping values. I want to briefly explain why I am (loosely speaking) “pro GM” as the starting point to a more useful conversation.

I want to be very clear: I am in favour of the use of genetic modification technology – not Monsanto, not glyphosate, not every conceivable use of the technology, but the technology itself. I think that it has enormous potential for the good of mankind and for the planet. In fact, I think that we might need it as a species in the coming decades as population growth and an uncertain climate increase the difficulty involved in growing enough food for everyone.

For me, genetic modification technology is something that is highly likely to be useful and may in fact be essential for the future of mankind and the planet. When the existing staple crops have nothing more to give, GM may become essential in order to support a growing global population and an unpredictable climate. Building in pest resistance, draught tolerance and increasing the yield of staple crops may be necessary or at least very useful. One third of human-produced greenhouse gases come from agriculture – we need to investigate every possible way of reducing that huge load on the planet. GM may be one tool in the toolbox.

Critically, I believe that the technology as it is used is safe. This is a big point of conflict, so I want to be really clear about what this means; when crop varieties are produced using the various GM technologies, there is always a chance – just as there is with conventional breeding – that a negative trait could show itself. The crop could cause an allergic reaction in some people, for example or even be more generally poisonous. Although this is much less likely than with conventional breeding, each new variety is extensively tested. Years of laboratory and field testing precede the introduction of a new GM variety for commercial agricultural use. Of course, it would be entirely possible to produce a dangerous crop using these techniques – it could even be done intentionally. I trust the processes that oversee the development of these crops, though, including the huge amount of well-documented research and the range of international bodies that test the relatively small number of GM crops that are cultivated.

Nobody with any kind of serious interest in biotechnology will make blanket claims of absolute safety. In fact, it is well understood that biotech could be capable of producing very dangerous things, such as diseases. That is something that we should be concerned about. But the processes that are in place for the production of GM crops are more than adequate – in fact they are almost certainly excessive. There is, as far as I can ascertain, no evidence that anyone has been hurt by a genetically modified crop. The “precautionary approach” should be weighed against the benefits; if Golden Rice, for example, could save tens of thousands of lives and nobody can show any evidence of harm, it should be made available.

I am deeply concerned that much of the anti-GM commentary is, often intentionally, mixing up a number of issues that are not caused by GM technology. I would like to see GM techniques being available for humankind, because I think that we may need them. We should not throw out the baby with the bathwater; concerns about globalisation, monoculture, patents, unfair lawsuits or whatever should be tackled as specific issues – GM is too useful and has too much potential to allow it to be banned in places where it should be in active development.

While I may not be as reflexively nervous about corporate ambition as some people, I understand the fears regarding Monsanto et al. My interest is in supporting the incredible, international body of scientists who are developing new crop varieties for the benefit of humanity. Many of these work – directly or indirectly – for the major commercial players. This is to be expected. The reality of science is that it is expensive and somebody has to pay for it. To write off the entire enterprise because some people benefit financially is ridiculous. There are a plenty of independent scientists with whom to consult and no shortage of very vocal nay-sayers to remind us that not everyone is in agreement on the relevant issues.

As I alluded to above, I am strongly inclined to believe that most people involved in the GM “fight” – pro and anti – have very similar beliefs and interests. We want to feed everyone. We want safe, healthy food. We want to reduce the damage done to the environment by agriculture. We want farming to be sustainable – environmentally and financially. We want developing nations to have good quality food, but also choice and autonomy. The passion regarding some of the technologies and methods employed arises because we care about people, the environment and food.

It is critical that we recognise the good intentions of (at least some of) those with an opposing point of view in this area, otherwise the debate becomes distorted to breaking point. Once you believe the “shill” lie (rather than merely using it as a diversionary pejorative), you will start to lose touch with the issues at hand. Similarly, dismissing the viewpoint of those in the “pro labelling” camp, for example, will do nothing to reduce the prevailing fear.

If you disagree with me, go ahead and say so. But if you insist that my motives – and those of most of the rest of the “disinterested” pro-biotech camp – are financial (or inherently evil), your involvement will achieve nothing of any value.

–

A quick note: I have no formal qualifications in anything to do with biotechnology. Just an interest. In fact, I have a Computer Science degree and a background in that area – ie almost exactly the same qualifications as the Food Babe, for example (but without the looks or the yoga).

Why you should be nice to Jehovah’s Witnesses and other door-knocking proselytisers

Keep Out

If there’s one thing that we can all agree upon, whatever our religious point of view, it’s that there’s nothing worse than people knocking on your door and trying to talk to you about Jesus, right? Whether you’re religious or not, chances are that you have your own viewpoint and don’t want people bursting into your life and trying to convince you to change your mind. Religion is a personal thing for most people and an uninvited home visit can feel intrusive. It’s not surprising that most people seem to have their own technique for getting rid of such unwelcome visitors.

But I’m always kind to religious door knockers. That’s in spite of being very comfortably non-religious. I generally explain my position, but if at all possible say that they’re welcome to come in for a chat. If you don’t want to talk to religious door knockers, I would urge you to be polite, even to thank them for offering to share their religion with you. Perhaps take a copy of the Watchtower (or any alternative literature that is offered). Why? Because theirs is the right way to proselytise. Many people want to share their philosophical point of view and with many religions there is something of a duty to do it. If you genuinely believe that you are giving someone a chance at eternal life, or of avoiding eternal damnation, it’s a pretty decent thing to do. But the right way to do it is to approach adults and to offer them a chance to hear what you have to say. They can always say no.

This is in contrast to the wrong way to do it: take over the local school and force your beliefs onto other people’s children. Perhaps work your way into the legal system or become a part of the government in order to bind your beliefs into everyone else’s lives. That would be a cynical and unreasonable way to share your beliefs.

If you believe, as I do, in secularism – the freedom to hold whatever religious viewpoint you choose – then it follows that you should support the freedom of others to share their religion. Of course, you are free to reject what they are offering, but if you take out your distaste for proselytising primarily on those who do it in the right way, you are favouring those who do it in the wrong way. Will talking to Witnesses or Latter Day Saints make your local school any more secular? Hardly. But by supporting an effort to make this outlet for the need to share a pleasant option, you will in some small way be contributing to a truly secular society. As long as the established church knows that the general public is less bothered by vicars and priests descending directly upon their children in school than by the occasional inconvenience of a couple of old ladies at the door, it has every incentive to resist the secular education system that most people favour.

STFU and contribute!

You can listen and read all you like, searching out a path for yourself – but sometimes the best advice comes to you via the most unlikely routes. In this case, I stumbled across a jokey whine about the limitations of HTML and other web technologies… together with a harsh reply that somehow struck me: (paraphrasing) I worked with the guys who built these things and I can tell you the enormous effort that went in. If you don’t like it, STFU and contribute! The author of the reply apologised for being so abrupt, but the sentiment made quite an impact upon me. Perhaps more so than ever before, the opportunity is there to improve the technology that we use and the world around us. The Internet has made it easy to find and to form groups to tackle issues that need attention. The Open Source software movement has provided a blueprint for open collaboration. It has never been easier to get involved. For me, this was the slap in the face that I needed – a harsh but fair reminder that, by my own rules, it was time to work a lot harder to get involved and to apply myself. The reality is that I still have a lot more to do. What really got me thinking, though, was the collaborative sentiment to this call to arms: contribute. That’s what I need to do. It’s too easy to get bogged down with the missing pieces, to see even small problems as insurmountable because you don’t have all of the answers. But it’s not always necessary to do everything yourself: you just need to create the momentum or help to build it for someone else. And so, I will hone my skills, talk to people and actively look for ways to participate in improving something that I care about. Finding problems is all very well, but finding problems that you can solve is infinitely more useful.

In Praise of Marriage

Traditional wedding-topper marriage piece illustration

Image Credit: Cotswold Characters

A couple of months ago I was interested to read a Guardian Comment is Free piece by the marvellous Tauriq Moosa, which proposed that marriage no longer makes sense. Although I have a lot of time for his point of view on most things, I think he’s wrong in this case – and it’s fairly easy to explain why if we reframe the argument somewhat: myths aside, what IS good about marriage?

As a gut instinct, I have little time for tradition – at least as a justification for doing anything that you wouldn’t want to do without it. But for a lot of things in life, it is very useful; it can provide a generally recognisable framework or a default mode of behaviour, which can be helpful socially. Starting with something with which people are familiar and moulding it for your own purposes will usually give you a head start when you want to make some kind of statement. While I would never suggest getting married purely to appease some societal or family pressure, it is very useful to ride the wave of tradition if it suits you. For those of us who have found someone that we really love who we intend to spend the rest of our life with, a handy prefabricated arrangement into which that relationship can be categorised can be really rather nice; that warm and pleasant feeling of being a part of a tradition, practising a part of your culture and repeating something that has been done for so long before is a fulfilling thing. It’s not surprising that so many completely irreligious couples choose to marry in religious settings such as churches: the pleasant building alone is a part of it, but the feeling of being a part of something ancient brings a feeling of gravitas to the occasion. People have been gathering together their communities and celebrating their pairing off for a life together for millennia – it’s still a nice thing to do, so why stop now?

For those people who are religious, there are typically various god-related elements that make marriage special for them. If they choose to marry for these reasons and it makes them happy, where’s the problem? The various versions of marriage can coexist.

Of course, marriage changes very little in reality; unless you are a member of that tiny, possibly slightly crazy group of people who reserve certain intimacies for married life, you will typically return from your honeymoon somewhat (or quite considerably) poorer and with a lot of mismatched plates that you don’t need – but you will still be the same couple with the same family and friends. And yet… something does change. There is a difference. Perhaps it’s all motivated by tradition, prejudice one might even say, but having a wife/husband is different from having a girlfriend/boyfriend. Whether legitimately or otherwise, you feel in some small way more a part of society. Your partner’s family treat you a little differently. I suppose you feel a bit more grown up. Of course, this undoubtedly doesn’t apply to everyone, but it seems common. Is all of this a bit silly? Well, no; however little it may mean in the scheme of things, you have made a declaration to people around you, a statement of your intentions as a couple. That’s not something that tends to happen, otherwise.

And sometimes that display to those around you is important. If there are simmering misgivings about your partner from your family or friends, marriage can be a useful line in the sand. It can be a radical statement when you marry into a different religion or class, but it’s only because of that weight of history, tradition and the associated legal bindings that it means more than a couple of signatures on a piece of paper.

And on top of all of this, it’s an excellent excuse to buy all of your friends and family a pint!

What should change are the bad things about marriage; obviously the really nasty things like child marriages and forced marriages should be cracked down upon hard. Those are very serious human rights problems, but we don’t need to blame marriage itself for them. Any kind of coercion in relationships is clearly horrible and I can only feel for people who live in any situation where such a thing is considered normal and acceptable. Society should not force people to marry or assume that they will. Those who choose to marry should not have to get themselves into colossal amounts of debt, buy overpriced blood diamonds or misrepresent their beliefs or intentions to satisfy anyone else. Undeserved legal rights should be repealed. And the so-called “traditional” marriage, alluded to above, should be expanded to include as many different variations of the wholesome, Disney fairytale version as can be reasonably included in the definition; it should go beyond gay marriage into truly genderless marriage where two – or, why not, more than two – people can marry without their biological history being a factor. And we should be able to do it where we like and with whatever religious or pseudo-religious elements we want included within it. Other elements such as sexual fidelity should be a matter for those in the relationship. And perhaps a better system of alternatives to marriage needs to made more readily available to cover people with entirely different arrangements, too.

Let’s open it up to everyone, but demand it of no one. Then it can be the happy thing, for anyone who wants it, that it is for me and (she assures me), my lovely wife.