But at what cost? Tobacco plants growing in a hospital laboratory in London, genetically modified to include an algae gene, are said to provide an effective anti-HIV drug.
When you bring in medical justifications for ethically dubious practices, you find many previous opponents back off and begin arguing the case for rather than against—or at least they divide their views into contextual acceptability or no: you can do it for this reason, you can’t do it for that reason.
We see this all the time with regard to animal testing. It’s okay, some say, to test on animals, to torture and kill them, if the stated aim is to find a cure for cancer and not a new shade of lipstick. Those of us who are reasonable people most of the time can see the logic in this duality of opinion on what is effectively the same subject, whether we subscribe to the same views or not.
I’m not in favour of animal testing under any circumstance. I’m also a long way away in my opinions and actions from those who believe violence and intimidation are appropriate responses to the violence committed against animals in the name of science.
I don’t, in short, believe two wrongs can ever make a right.
There are, however, considerable dangers in dual-approach advocates/denouncers of animal testing turning the same thinking on all things to do with genetic modification. Declaring that it is wrong to genetically modify plants and animals to make them grow faster, contain more vitamins and fend off bugs, on the grounds that these are not ‘essential’ while it is entirely okay to do the same for reason of medical advancement because that is essential, seems, at first glance, to be at least almost as justifiable and logical in the same way as the no to cosmetic testing/yes to medical testing argument is viewed.
There might be a hidden and terrible price to pay for being arrogant enough to think we can safely improve on nature. We may find the bugs that no longer affect this crop turn their attention to another, or, worse, become extinct and in so doing upset the incredibly complex food web that sustains all life on Earth. I’m definitely against genetic manipulation of plants and animals, even when justification is given that the results could feed thousands. I simply don’t buy the hype. So why, given my beliefs, should I turn round and abandon them when someone waves the justification of AIDS or malaria in my face? These fears don’t go away simply because the motivation behind the genetic tinkering appears ostensibly noble.
So what about tweaking Mother Nature’s bounty for reasons of producing new drugs to combat terrible diseases? Surely nobody can reasonably argue against this? Well, there are those who think it unreasonable to argue against food crops being souped-up, and so it should come as no surprise to find the same people (who probably also vote ‘compassionately but pragmatically’) doubly appalled to hear anyone dissing the notion that a cure-all nirvana can and will be found in opening up tulips and mixing them with the genes of goldfish, or growing plants made up from a heady mix of sheep, pig, and even human with a dash of daffodil and a sprinkling of water lily.
These admittedly made-up but increasingly more likely Frankenstein combinations sound like ever-more bizarre items on the menu of an intergalactic ravenous marauder, but may in fact provide a means by which GM tampering can gain cultural acceptance in a way never before possible. Say it’s for the love of the people, most of the people will buy it without question.
We’ve already got, “why are you pouring acid in the eyes of that baboon? Oh, it’s to find a cure for blindness? That’s okay!”. So leaping to the question, “why are you mixing goat and hyacinth with soya bean?” isn’t so hard to imagine along with acceptance of the answer, that being, “it’s for the eradication of [insert name of terrible disease]“.
Of course, the psychology involved in this hoodwinkery is nothing new. It was being practised long before psychology was even invented as a term of reference, or a discipline.
“We know what’s good for you.”
“Trust us, we are working for you, on your behalf.”
“We go to war because we must stop this brutal dictator who is a threat to everything we hold dear, our democracy, our way of life.”
The question I have for you, the person reading this article, is simply this: are you brave enough to think for yourself, to research before drawing conclusions that are, if you pause to think, based solely upon what you see on television, hear on the radio, read in the newspapers—and, yes, read on this and other blogs and websites? I must admit, I’d love to say “yes” but my answer, like many of you I suspect, is “sometimes, but not all the time, and probably not most of the time”.
It’s a scary and somewhat sobering thought to realise just how much we are all—irrespective of what we think our political persuasions and opinions are—puppets of the media whose ideas cannot always, if ever, with any confidence be said to be entirely our own.
In many respects, while children and adults alike starve in parts of Africa and suffer from the absence of clean water, sanitation, health care and education, they live, for a lamentably short and difficult time, in a way that it is impossible for any of us in the Western world to hope for: free from the spin that turns us into automatons at worst, fooled advocates of things we don’t understand at best. Would I exchange the thing we call freedom for the freedom of those poor people? No. But I’d like to find out if there’s a way of bringing the two closer together, dropping the hype and lies of our freedom and bringing health and educational benefits to theirs.
There are, of course, limits on the things one individual can learn about, and know. I’m a poet not a scientist, and I do not expect a scientist to know Plath and Sexton, Coleridge and Byron, any more than a scientist would expect me to know how to split an atom. But I would rather not act at all out of ignorance than go forward with any action in the mistaken belief that others must know better than I because they tell me so, not only to my face but by using the manipulative tools of a very shiny and alluring mediascape. I say, convince me. You don’t do so by playing the medical card. It’s what I call a cheap shot. I will not be tricked.
The images used in this article were generously made public by people using the Flickr service. Hovering over any image with your mouse will take you to that person’s photostream.
Currently listening to: LCD Soundsystem – 45:33: Nike+ Original Run – 45:33: Nike+ Original Run
Related Posts:
- Finding new ways to be cruel to animals in the name of science I was appalled when I read a Telegraph article online last night about how American scientists plan to create mice with brains completely composed of human cells. I’m actually a...
