IF YOU live in Europe it is easy to believe that genetically modified crops
are finished. Skilful media campaigns by activist groups have made these
鈥渇rankenfoods鈥� about as popular as nuclear power stations. Supermarkets and
restaurants proudly announce themselves 鈥淕M free鈥� and protestors trample fields
of test plantings of modified crops with impunity. In North America too, despite
earlier acceptance, a backlash is under way.
With GM crops on the ropes, it seems a strange time to announce that they
could have a really bright long-term future. But if you read the signs, honestly
assess the world鈥檚 future food needs, and look at the safer, greener,
genetically modified crops we could produce, then the conclusion is exactly
that.
Future GM crops won鈥檛 look the same as the first set of products, which were
designed to create colossal monocultures protected by massive use of herbicides.
And they might not appear at all unless scientists engage vigorously in the
debate over their future and governments listen to the right advice.
Advertisement
One sign of a more positive future for GM crops comes this week in a report
from Britain鈥檚 Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE), a
committee of 13 independent experts who advise the government on the release and
marketing of genetically modified organisms
(see p 4).
The report focuses on ways that GM plants could be made safer. It lists
techniques that would greatly reduce the risks of, for example, pollen from
stands of modified crops spreading to other fields. Plants can be engineered not
to produce pollen at all, or to produce pollen that is incompatible with other
unmodified plants.
Even more important are techniques described in the report that are still in
development. Add to those the many other possibilities appearing as our
knowledge of plant genomes deepens and you have the potential for a quite
different GM revolution.
The genetically engineered crops that the world has come to hate were created
by introducing foreign genes that either boost herbicide resistance or add
protection from pests.
Much more subtle interventions now look possible. Among them are ways of
changing the regulation of the genes that plants already possess, to create
plants that have larger leaves, flower earlier, and produce deeper roots or
shorter stems. This may not sound like much, but the potential benefits are
huge. Larger leaves can shade out weeds. Small adjustments in flowering time may
make it easier to grow more than one crop a year. Deeper roots combat drought.
And shorter stems leave more energy to boost seed harvests. These are the kinds
of changes that conventional breeders have been making for thousands of years.
Knowledge of genes and their control do the same鈥攂ut much faster.
More dramatic changes might be possible by harnessing the extraordinary
powers of apomixis
(see p 5).
Many plants reproduce asexually, generating seed
but no pollen. By transferring suitable controlling genes to crop plants, it
should be possible to make them produce seeds that are genetically identical to
the parent. This would be a boon to farmers, as it would allow them to gather
seeds from their own crops and replant them year after year. Currently, this
cannot be sustained for long, as top-quality genetic strains interbreed and
gradually lose their vigour. Apomixis could be great news for farmers who can鈥檛
afford premium commercial seeds.
But wouldn鈥檛 the power of apomixis run into opposition from the big
agricultural companies, who now sell seed to farmers every year. Not
necessarily. Apomixis has the potential to speed up the process by which
desirable characteristics are fixed, making it much easier to create more seed
varieties, each adapted to local conditions. That could be a big help in poorer
countries with small and diverse farming systems. But it is only likely to
happen if governments make sure that research on apomixis is well supported, and
the rights to use the techniques are freely available.
Which brings us back to the question: how can we make sure that we get the
kind of biotechnology we want? 杏吧原创s must join in debate over what is best,
rather than unquestioningly supporting research projects set by their employers.
And governments must seek out the right scientific advice and have the courage
to act on it.
Next week will see the publication of a vast government report on Britain鈥檚
BSE fiasco. We expect it to criticise the way the government commissions and
acts on scientific advice. With any luck, it鈥檚 criticism that will change the
kinds of science that shape society.