EU SOCRATES ERASMUS European Community
IP “Bioethics in Life and Environmental Sciences”
“Why transgenic animals do not raise the same
reactions of people as transgenic plants?”
By:
Doroteya Raykova – Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”
Grzegorz Dziurawiec – Uniwersytet Przyrodniczy w Lublinie
Michaël da Veiga Mendes – Universidade de Évora
Silwya Misiaszek – Uniwersytet Przyrodniczy w Lublinie
Vasil Savov – Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”
Lublin, 22 March – 5 April 2009
Table of Contents
Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction................................................................................................................................. 2
1. GMOs – definition .................................................................................................................... 3
2. Producing GMO ....................................................................................................................... 3
2.1. How to obtain a transgenic animal? ....................................................................................... 3
2.2. How to obtain a transgenic plant? ......................................................................................... 4
3. What is the aim to create GMO? .............................................................................................. 4
3.1. Applications of transgenic animals ......................................................................................... 4
3.2. Applications of transgenic plants ........................................................................................... 5
4. GMOs – pros and cons ............................................................................................................. 6
4.1. Advantages of transgenic animals and plants ......................................................................... 6
4.2. Disadvantages of transgenic animals ..................................................................................... 6
4.3. Disadvantages of transgenic plants ........................................................................................ 7
5. Ethical issues ........................................................................................................................... 8
6. Why transgenic animals do not raise the same reactions of people as transgenic plants? .........11
Bibliography ...............................................................................................................................18
1
Abstract
Genetic modification is not really a recent phenomenon: thousands of years of
selection have lead to the domestication of many animal and plant species.
However, with the modern methods of genetic engineering and biotechnology, it
is possible to cross the interspecific barriers and create transgenic organisms
with newly acquired properties. All of these creatures are designed to serve a
specific purpose, from which society is supposed to benefit. Undoubtedly, GMO
have valuable applications in farming, food and pharmaceutical production and
medicine, but they also have their disadvantages. For this reason, ethical issues
are often raised and there are extensive and unceasing debates on the subject.
There seem to be hierarchies of acceptance in terms of the type of transgenic
organism, the purpose of the application, and the nature of the benefits obtained.
The reactions of society are controversial, but it seems that transgenic plants are
perceived more positively than transgenic animals.
Keywords: GMO, transgenic animals, transgenic plants, genetic engineering, applications,
bioethical issues, public opinion
Introduction
With the term “transgenic” scientists connote an organism in which a gene has been
altered or added from another organism. In general terms, we could argue that crops created
8,000 years ago from common grasses were the first “modified” organisms. For instance,
cabbage, broccoli, Brussels sprouts and cauliflower all originate from the same wild plant.
Similarly, the Chihuahua and the Blood Hound in fact come from tamed wolves. The Belgian
Blue cow is a more recent result from regular breeding, and it is oftentimes alleged as a
monster of genetic engineering, without actually being one. The notion of genes originated
some time after 1865 when Mendel started performing his famous experiments with peas, and
thus established the foundations of clasical genetics. However, it wasn’t until 1944 that it was
proven that DNA is the molecule which carries genetic information. Many years passed
before researchers gathered the necessary knowledge and managed to develop the tools to
transfer genes from one organism to another. In 1946 Max Delbruck showed that genes from
two different viruses could be combined to form a new kind of virus, an experiment very
close to transgenesis in its contemporary sense. In 1972 Paul Berg joined two DNA strands
from different sources into one plasmid – he constructed the first recombinant DNA, which is
the basis of the transgenetic process. Finally, in 1973, Herbert Boyer combined a bacterial
gene with a gene from a virus and thus got a recombinant DNA that was then inserted into the
genome of E. coli, obtaining in this way the first transgenic organism. Later on, Boyer
established the company Genentech. In 1977 it genetically engineered bacteria which were
able to produce a human protein. The revolution has begun.
2
1. GMOs – definition
GMOs are genetically modified organisms that can be broadly classified into three
major groups – plants, animals, and microorganisms. They are defined as organisms which
possess a foreign gene (called the transgene) deliberately inserted in their genomes by means
of modern techniques in genetic engineering. For this reason, we also speak of transgenic
animals and plants.
2. Producing GMO
2.1. How to obtain a transgenic animal?
To begin with, it is necessary to locate and isolate a specific gene to be inserted in the
target animal’s DNA. This gene is first inserted in a plasmid and then it is obtained in
multiple copies thanks to bacterial ability to rapidly reproduce and replicate their DNA. The
next step is to isolate the gene from the bacterial plasmid and to obtain a linear piece of DNA
which can at this point be used for genetic modification. Insertion of this foreign genetic
material can be performed in several ways. One possibility is to inject it directly into the male
pronucleus of a fertilized egg. Another way is to introduce the transgene into embryonic stem
cells by microinjection. Then the ES cells are grown until they reach the blastocyst stage and
are then inserted in the surrogate mother’s uterus (see example in Fig.2).
Fig.1. Producing transgenic plants
3
2.2. How to obtain a transgenic plant?
This procedure is pretty much the same in its principles as the process of engineering a
transgenic animal. Main steps in this case include gene location and isolation from a donor,
cloning of the gene, and its insertion into the host plant tissue. Again, plasmid vectors are
used to carry out the transfer (see example in Fig.1.). Next follows transgenic plant
regeneration, genetic characterization and marker-assisted selection.
3. What is the aim to create a GMO?
3.1. Applications of transgenic animals
The usual reason to create a transgenic animal is to serve specific needs of society,
farming and economy by enhancing certain positive traits of the animal or administering new
ones. For instance, transgenic animals may be created to show increased milk production (in
sheep) or muscle tissue (in bulls). In this respect, transgenic animals can be conceived as food
resources as well. An example is the incorporation of a human growth hormone into an
animal’s genome. Thus, growth is accelerated and the transgenic animal becomes larger. This
experiment has been performed on salmon, resulting in the creation of a so called superfish.
4
Apart from its larger size and better flesh color, such fish boast additional resistance to
maladies.
Other applications are directed to production of certain medicinal substances for
therapeutic needs. It is desirable that the transgenic animal used for pharmaceutical
production secretes the desired substance at high levels without endangering its own health
and that it passes this ability to its progeny. Animals altered in this way are often called
transpharmers. A good example is the transgenic sheep Polly, which was born six months
after the famous Dolly. Polly was a clone, too, but an additional gene of human origin was
inserted into her genome. It led to the production of a specific blood plasma protein called
factor IX, which takes part in blood clotting and is absent in patients suffering from some
forms of haemophilia. The transgene, previously incorporated in the cultured cells, was
subsequently transferred to an enucleated oocyte during the stage of fusion, and thus the gene
product was expressed in Polly’s milk later on. Similarly, pigs can be genetically modified so
that they produce human haemoglobin in their blood. Such proteins, secreted in milk or blood,
have to be collected and purified and can be used for medical treatment.
On the other hand, transgenic animals may be used as disease models, and in this case
they are modified so that they express human pathologies which they are otherwise not
susceptible to. The idea is to be able to study different disease mechanisms so that therapy can
be developed. For instance, transgenic mice have been used as models for disorders such as
Alzheimer, some types of cancer (oncomice) and AIDS. Furthermore, transgenic animals are
helpful in human gene therapy. The therapy consists in adding a normal copy of a gene to the
genome of a person carrying a defective copy. For example, in Finland a transgenic calf was
produced with a gene that promotes the growth of red blood cells in humans.
Still another application of GMAs is as animal organ sources. Certain species such as
pigs can be genetically altered to turn into viable donors for tissues and organs for human
transplants. This is a critical issue in many countries, since there is a great want for
transplantations worldwide. Pigs can be genetically modified so that the gene responsible for
the human rejection response is deleted; these knockout animals can be then cloned in order to
multiply the effect of this manipulation known as xenotransplantation.
Apart from these applications, transgenic animals are also used for other more bizarre
purposes. For instance, in 2001 the first transgenic monkey was engineered. Its genome
contained a gene coding for the fluorescent jellyfish protein GFP. At the same time,
transgenic pets are already on the market and some companies are even trying to create
allergen-free cats for allergic pet-lovers.
3.2. Applications of transgenic plants
Currently, transgenic plants take the primary position in GMO technology. The largest
share of GMP worldwide is owned by Monsanto Company. Transgenic crops are mostly used
in agriculture and their purpose is to raise the yields. For this reason, scientists try to provide
GMPs with better “survival skills”. For example, resistance to herbicides or ability to produce
persticidal proteins is eagerly sought after. The latter was achieved in a type of transgenic
potatoes which carry a transgene of a Bacillus toxin deadly for Colorado potato beetle
5
(Leptinotarsa decemlineata). Bt plants are safe from this major pest that is feeding on their
green parts without a necessity to be sprinkled with any chemicals.
Another profitable application in the marketing is the ability of some transgenic plants
to ripen for an untypically long period. For instance, the transgenic Flavr Savr tomato can be
left to ripen on the vine for longer so that it improves its flavor.
Similarly, some GMPs are altered so that they have higher nutritive value, bigger size,
increased productivity, tolerance to extreme temperatures or drought, or longer shelflife. All
of these profitable properties are useful in modern agriculture and in trade.
Transgenic plants can also serve humanitarian causes. An example is the so called
golden rise. It is a variety of Oryza sativa that is modified so that it synthesizes beta-carotene,
a precursor of vitamin A, in its grains. The idea is to use this as food in countries where there
is shortage of vitamin A in the diet.
4. GMOs – pros and cons
Despite the fact that the theme of our work is not a settlement whether genetically
modified organisms are good or bad, necessary for a better understanding of our work seems
to be bringing few facts related to GMOs.
4.1. Advantages of transgenic animals and plants
Transgenic organisms undeniably possess their advantages: they were genetically
engineered so that they have some advantage over other individuals from their species. We
can therefore claim that the positive sides and benefits of GMOs coincide with the
applications they were created for.
4.2. Disadvantages of transgenic animals
In many cases, genes have more than one function. Often, a gene is considered to have
one particular role in the organism, but in most cases, the animal with the gene removed has
either unexpected adverse effects or behaves identically to an animal with the gene.
Literature is abundant with examples of transgenic animals with unexpected
aberrations. In one study published 1997 in Nature, researchers genetically engineered a strain
of mice that lacked a prostacyclin receptor. Prostacyclin is a chemical that keeps blood from
clotting, and researchers were hoping to study stroke and cardiovascular ailments with their
newly created mouse model. When the scientists engineered their mice, however, they found
that the chemical had another function, too, a role in pain perception. This means that the
knockout mice had more than one function silenced, which could be fatal.
Another example: cows that have been genetically modified to have larger udders
produce more milk indeed, but are burdened to carry greater weight, so they cause more stress
6
on their limbs and may have more limb injuries. What is more, cloned animals are usually
born with a variety of cardiopulmonary ailments.
One possible event that seems to provoke fear and heated debates is that genetically
modified salmon can escape and cross-breed with a natural population of salmon, or even just
escape into the wild. Female salmon fish choose a mate by paying most attention to the size of
the male. It is obvious that if an genetically engineered salmon of five hundred pounds
infiltrates a natural population, it will have a great advantage over all the normal males of that
population. The females would show preference to this superfish when choosing their mate.
This could create serious problems for biodiversity. There is a theory called the Trojan gene
theory. This theory shows, through scientific tests, that the offspring of the transgenic salmon
have disadvantages, such as poor muscles and decreased swimming ability in comparison
with their natural counterparts. For this reason, and for many others, their survival rate is low.
A computer-generated model predicted that in about forty generations, the native salmon
population infiltrated by GM salmon could be destroyed completely. According to this theory,
it would take only a few genetically engineered fish to cause the extinction of entire
populations.
4.3. Disadvantages of transgenic plants
Genetically modified foods provoke a lot of heated discussions among many, both
food producers and consumers. One of the arguments most often raised is the possibility for
the creation of "artificial" nutritionally full plants through the implantation of genetic material
into their DNA. This way of reasoning seems to be just as promising as it is dangerous. As
experience shows, humankind has made many failures and underdevelopments in the past 20
years. A good example of such an error may be the creation of a species of corn called
MON810, which, as it is clear from the research carried out by the Italian National Institute
for Research on Food and Nutrition, disturbs the function of the immune system, lowers the
fertility of experimental mice (regardless of age) and causes irregularities in the expression of
the genes. Another example is the growing of the Brazilian soy bean which contains a gene
from the genome of the ground-nut. The result was a plant containing a highly allergenic
protein.
It was also found that there is large-scale cross-breeding between GM and
conventional plants. GM plant pollen is transferred by wind, insects, people to the
neighbouring crops and there is no way to prevent this. The Central Science Laboratory report
says that rape pollen can be spread by bees at a distance of as much as 26 km. The University
of Reading, England, claims that GM oilseed rape cross-pollinate by way of dust rising from
wild species like kohlrabi, turnips, fodder beets, radishes, creating a super weed form. The
fields sown with conventional and organic production from neighbouring GM crops may
experience contamination and farmers will be able to sell their products as free from GM,
although in fact this is not going be the case. In this way, when people buy a product, they
won’t really know if it is genetically modified food or not, and they cannot make a truly
informed choice. The rights of consumers are discredited, which is why ethical questions are
raised.
7
Plant pollen is not the only possible way of transmission of modified genes. Naturally
occurring viruses in soils (which are used in biotechnological laboratories) have a high
capacity to integrate into different DNA fragments, so that new plant strains can be produced,
and they can spread the resistance to different plant antigens.
Also it is suspected that during the creation of GM crops as a result of the use of large
quantities of antibiotics and xenobiotics, resistant bacteria may arise in effect. This issue is
similar to the problem with resistant bacterial species arising because of the excessive use of
antibiotics by humans and it is one of the central concerns of modern microbiology.
Moreover, genetic modifications that have been performed with the idea to reduce the
amount of herbicides, fungicides, etc. did not lead to the expected result. Another occurring of
GM plants resistant to these chemicals gives rise to the need of even stronger spraying to
make the latter effective. For example, Dr. Charles Benbrook of the Northwest Science and
Environment Policy Center Idaho said that the use of pesticides and herbicides on 222 million
hectares of soya-GM crops, GM-maize and cotton in the U.S. since 1996 was greater in
comparison with the traditional crop by 22.7 thousand tonnes.
Here appears also aspect of morality and responsibility of farmers, who encourage the
vision of multiplying profits. Greediness and ignorance combined with the usage of greater
quantities of chemicals may lead to contamination of their food production.
Scientists have attempted to create transgenic crops containing substances which
should supplement the dietary needs of populations where such components are scarce.
Humane as it is, this idea proved unsuccessful in the case of Golden rice, which was
mentioned before. It was meant to produce vitamin A precursor, but along with this precious
quality, it turned out that the consumption of Golden rice leads to accumulation of lactic acid
in skeletal muscles. Although several brands of Golden rice were created, none of them is on
the market at the moment because of its side effects.
Other disadvantages of transgenic plants include the possibility to worsen the taste of a
fruit or a vegetable while trying to improve some other quality. This is in fact what happened
to the Flavr Savr tomato which was designed to have stronger flavour, but unfortunately
turned out to be far less delicious than normal, unmodified tomatoes.
Although they have their positive traits, Bt plants have also risen ethical and
ecological debates. Indeed, when they are genetically modified in such a way they do not fall
prey to Leptinotarsa decemlineata, but in this way the population of the beetle decreases. So
far, so good; yet, as a result of that, ladybirds that feed on Colorado beetles are deprived of
their natural food. This fact brings other consequences that are pretty serious in an ecological
context: an entire food chain is broken.
5. Ethical issues
Ethical issues associated with genetically modified animals are often discussed. The
transgenic process raises a lot of questions in the moral, philosophical or ethical sphere about
the notions of “life”, “rights”, “instrumentation” and “property”.
Utilitarianism is seen by the philosophers as the most widespread and common way of
thinking, which is typical of most modern people. It rests on the idea for maximization of the
8
good and wellbeing in a democratic society: in this context, an action is considered positive
when its consequences are less harmful (or will harm fewer individuals) than is its opposite
action. This philosophical trend is therefore the one through the prism of which animal ethical
problems should be perceived.
Ethical issues concerning transgenic animal-human relationship arise from many
sources. One reason for this is that there are different views, beliefs, and even religious
practices tightly connected with animals and nature. In the context of Christianity, there are
both positive and negative consequences from transgenesis. On one hand, God is the only
creator who has the right to tamper with life and DNA was not meant for humans to “play”
and experiment with it, let alone change it. On the other hand, nothing is really fixed in the
texture of God’s creation, which is evident by paleontologic research showing that some
species have become extinct and other evolved.
Experiments with animals have been performed for such a long period that it has
practically turned into an unquestionable habit until recently when people started feeling more
conscious about these problems. “The truth is we have been selecting characteristics ever
since we first started domesticating plants and animals,” says Dr. Alex Livingston, dean of the
Western College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Saskatchewan. The ones who reflect
most on these pros and cons and who have to make ethical decisions are probably scientists,
activists for animal welfare, members of animal ethics organizations and committees, but also
commonplace members of society. The most widely discussed factors include the producing,
use and applications of transgenic animals, the welfare of animals both genetically modified
and unmodified, ecology, the environment, the economy, the society and the ethical dilemmas
it faces and is going to face in the future, as well as human health. Naturally, what society
should look for and needs is a balanced relationship between animal and human, and it should
be informed and aware of the consequences of the using transgenic technologies upon
animals, of their effect on the environment and the human race.
There are three different conclusions that seem to have formed as a result of extensive
discussions on these ethical matters. The first deduction is that the use of transgenic animals
can be considered ethically acceptable because the consequences on welfare, health and
environment are viewed as insignificant by many, especially on the background of the
benefits. Another prevailing idea is that the use of GMAs is acceptable if the benefits are
considerably greater than the negative effects. And finally, the third notion is connected with
specific aspects that exist in some societies in which the benefits and the negative
consequences don´t have importance, because transgenesis is denied as a whole. These
“intrinsic” values are observed both on a social and personal level. As mentioned above, in
each religion the respect of nature is seen differently, for example in Hinduism the cow must
not be harmed in any way because it is a holy animal.
Another important ethical question is the one about the barrier between humans and
animals. The use of genetic technologies is weakening this barrier. Manipulation of genes and
exchange of genetic material are blending the different species in a way that does not happen
in nature, bringing consequences that are impossible to predict in the long run and possibly
threatening biodiversity. The question is, aren’t these “combined species” an unethical change
in the natural order of our world?
9
Moreover, man exploits animals to serve his needs since ancient times; but is this
ethical? Belonging to the kingdom Animalia himself, does man have a true right to do this?
Changing the animal genome is undeniably a major step forward in science but it also brings
along vast responsibility. “Effort to safeguard and cherish the environment needs to be
infused with a vision of the sacred”, Carl Sagan, Jerome Weisner and Stephen Jay Gould say.
Are scientists playing the role of God? Do people actually “own” any other life than their own
and doesn’t the creation of transgenic animals turn these GMOs into simple commodities?
Ethical issues about GMOs are also connected with medicine. As mentioned before,
transgenic animals can be used as disease models, like donors for human organs, like
producers of medicinal substances, and thus they can help humankind immensely in its fight
against disorders. At the same time, an ethical question is brought up by a BBC article: “Is it
unethical to create 'diseased' animals that are very likely to suffer?” At the same time, is it
ethical to stop the experiments with transgenic animals and give up hope for treatment?
The ethical issues about transgenic plants join those concerning transgenic animals in
some ways. In the public´s opinion, the main difference is the worry about the safety for the
consumers of genetically modified food. Naturally, when a new product pops up on the food
market, consumers are often suspicious; even more so when we are speaking of a transgenic
organism. Bearing in mind the fact that ordinary people do not receive much information on
the issue of GMOs, their reaction understandable. In fact, in one experiment scientists
engineered a strain of transgenic soy bean containing a Brazilian nut gene to increase some
commercially valuable features of the soy, but the final result was dangerous for people
allergic to nuts. This case opens new horizons for ethical discussion because people start
worrying about their health.
Another important facet is the chance of “genetic pollution”, which is a result of crossbreeding between GM plants and wild species. This is possible, although regulations require
that transgenic crops are sown far from other plants. So environmentalists ask: what will
happen if transgenic and non-transgenic plants mix? Is biodiversity threatened? If so, is it
ethical to plant such GMPs? It is difficult to predict the possibilities and the outcomes.
It is true that many people who lack information about transgenic plants, or whose
information is coming from sources like TV and newspapers (which in this case are not very
reliable) actively voice their opinions. However, in the serious debates about transgenic
plants, researchers, food producers, consumers and public groups take part in the role of
decision-makers. In recent years, this subject was the central topic in many conversations.
People are asking urgent questions about this new technology in plants. The first of these is
asks whether all possible risks are correctly evaluated, because no notions of risks seem to be
mentioned in the current EU regulations. Secondly, there aren´t any clear conclusions of
researches, so society puts in question if this kind of products on the food market are
dangerous for human´s health (and/or the health of animals, for that matter). The last issue is
about the use of pesticides: there are doubts if parasites will become resistant to toxins in
transgenic plants. No scientific information is available and debates are continuing.
There is a narrow relation between GMO, the environment, and health safety. Reality
shows that there is a dispute between the defenders of the environment and those who agree
that the science and the quality of life have to be reevaluated.
10
So, is it ethical to stop the advance and availability of the technology? Wouldn`t it be
contradictory to protect the environment and to fight for more productive agriculture, higher
income for the country, less aggressive, and with products more healthy? Who`s to blame –
the inventors of transgenic technology, or those who use it in order to gain profit? It´s
important to think and ask ourselves if it´s dangerous to use this technology, but also the
opposite question has to be asked: what is the risk if we don’t use this technology? The
solution to these problems is not clear yet, however the direction in which we have to look for
it is trying to find a balance, in which everyone who gets in touch with transgenesis is content.
Maybe the solution will be found in mutual compromise.
6. Why transgenic animals do not raise the same reactions of people as
transgenic plants?
Since in 1986 two small biotechnological companies – "Advanced Genetic Sciences of
Oakland” in California and Monsanto – made their first experimental sowing of genetically
modified crops, the protests against the use of GMOs in any form broke out and they seem to
continue without end. Over the last twenty years the arguments of both supporters and
opponents have changed only little. Most of them, despite the lack of basic knowledge in
terms of biotechnology research, are still repeating myths that have been rebutted by scientists
long ago, creating at the same time confusion among other people. What is interesting, most
of these myths concentrate round GM crops. This fact is significant because it allows us to
identify the starting point for understanding the way people perceive GMOs.
Keeping in mind the above statement, it is worth noticing that the European
biotechnology foods based on genetic techniques are viewed negatively, and so are the use of
methods of radiation on food, consolidating storage and the use of food additives, especially
preservatives or synthetic dyes. For instance, surveys conducted in Germany in 2006 showed
that 76% of respondents associated GMO with genetically modified plants, of which more
than 80% hadn’t even heard of the possibilities and experimental use the genetic material of
animals. The results obtained in Germany in fact do not stand out significantly against the
background of other European countries. This seems to be little surprising statement
compared with the fact that when similar studies were carried out it became apparent that
knowledge about the nature of GMO did not differ in any significant way between groups of
people with primary, secondary or higher level of education.
On the other hand, some people seem to be very well aware of the real situation. As an
example here, we can use a letter submitted by Bulgarian scientists Dr Eva Cherneva from the
Center for Transgenic Technologies in the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of
Pennsylvania, USA, and Dr Didi Baev, research associate in molecular microbiology and
genetics from the State University of New York, USA, to the authorities of this country. From
the letter it becomes apparent that Bulgarian society is not really prepared to deal with GMO,
because, to put it metaphorically, there are too many variables in this equation. Bulgarian
newspapers write that the growing of transgenic crops is the most ecological agriculture, that
there haven’t been any accidents with GMO until the moment and that these organisms have
11
only positive applications. However, it is impossible to make a long-term prognosis about the
effects of GMO on human health – they may cause allergies or other problems. Bulgarian
society doesn’t have enough information on both the negatives and positives of GMO in order
to form an educated opinion and take adequate decisions and choices.
Similar situation occurs in Poland. One difference is that the lobby in Poland
(e.g. Greenpeace), and the authorities tend to the opposite direction, i.e. inform the public
almost exclusively about the disadvantages of GMOs. A very good reflection of this seems to
be the proportion in which google.pl gives as a first 100 found pages: 47 negative, 39 with
objective information, and only 4 positive.
With such dramatically different positions of the Government and the media
against GMOs, it could be expected that the public in these two countries will have
completely different views on whether we should continue doing research on GM plants. This
time, as demonstrated by opinion polls conducted in June 2005 by Eurobarometer for the lack
of acceptance of GMOs in these countries, Bulgaria and Poland differ only in about 20% in
the prevailing public frame of mind.
12
These results may suggest that there is a source of influence on public opinion
in those countries that is other than media. During the tests carried out by Eurobarometer,
respondents were divided according to the “social” category, which is represented in the
following table:
13
These results are very interesting, especially because they reveal insignificant
differences in the acceptance of genetic engineering and independence of the level of
education. Clearly, it appears that there is some other factor which might be called "fear of the
unknown / new", which is responsible for this lack of acceptance, and far-reaching
skepticism.
On the other hand, we have to remember that it is clear from various studies on
public opinion and biotechnology that when the public judges biotechnological applications
there are various levels of acceptability. First comes the priority of purpose. In general,
applications intended to generate health and medical benefits are viewed most positively. This
is followed by applications for environmental benefits. Food biotechnology has generated
more concerns for a variety of reasons. When the technology succeeds in increasing the
welfare of society, greater support for the application is elicited rather than when the purpose
of transgenesis is seen as beneficial for certain individual (non-utilitarian) pursuits. For
example, among Frenchmen respondents who were asked whether they approved of
categories of genetically engineered animals, 53% approved of ‘bacteria to clean up oil spills’,
a more even split was observed for ‘cows that produce more milk’ (42% approving to 40%
disapproving), while only 19% approved of ‘larger sport fish’.
14
Even within the medical realm, not all medical applications are regarded
equally. For example, while Europeans view genetic testing with approval, there is much less
acceptance for such applications as xenotransplantation.
15
Again, issues such as the development test cell colonies, which could raise the meat
yield without killing animals need public opinion seems to be geared much more negatively.
As many sociologists explains this is due to the difference in human perception of the place of
plants and animals in the ecosystem. Furthermore the introduction of genetic manipulation in
animals is much more difficult, and what follows from that such research is carried out much
more carefully, and scientists are more moderately in affirming the achievements and
breakthroughs. Certainly has an effect on the ignorance of the subject by the public, but on the
other hand, leads to a reduction in concern and controversy among the general public.
In conclusion, we can say that the relation of the majority of Europeans to genetically
modified organisms is a result of a lack of interest in the topic or insufficient information.
16
This seems to be extremely paradoxical if we pay attention to the fact that more than half of
Europeans openly expressed disagreement, if not hostility to GMOs. The question of why
transgenic animals do not produce so negative reactions as GM plants (although the influence
of transgenic crops in our daily life appears to be equally significant), seems to have not only
one answer. However, few of these reasons seem to stand out, and we would like to repeat
them once more. First and foremost, the majority of Europeans have only minimal knowledge
about GM animals and plants. Second, people who are trying to find information on this
subject encounter great difficulty in reaching independent and reliable sources, which would
enable them to develop their own mind. As a third and the last we have to keep in mind that in
today's realities, even the biggest skeptics accept GM animals, which are bioreactors of
medicines, as creations ethically justified, in opposed to GM plants which are created almost
in each case for profit.
17
Bibliography:
1. Einsiedel, E.F. Public perceptions of transgenic animals, Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz.,
2005, 24 (1), 149-157
2. Rosu A., 1999. New trends in Agrobiotechnology Education. TEMPUS-PHARE CME
03066-97. Bucharest, International Conference, March 15-22nd 1999, 94p.
3. Wynne B., 2001. Creating public alienation: expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs.
Science as Culture 10: 445-481
4. www.biotechnolog.pl
5. www.gajanet.pl/article.php3?id_article=32
6. www.archivo.greenpeace.org/toursoja/informes/Multinacionales/monsanto_eng.pdf
7. www.gajanet.pl/article.php3?id_article=32
8. www.icppc.pl
9. www.organicconsumer.org/ge/supreme_court_schmeiser.cfm
10. www.us.expasy.org/cgi-in/lists?allergen.txt
11. www.ifr.bbsrc.ac.uk/protall
12. www.greenpeace.org/deutschland/?page=/deutschland/news/gentechnik/argentiniensbittere-gen-ernte
13. www.gmofree-europe.org
14. http://www.who.int/en/
15. http://www.gmo.biolog.pl/
16. www.halat.com/gmopl.html
17. www.ine-isd.org.pl/gmo
18. www.mos.gov.pl/1aktualnosci/informacje_rp/17.02.2005.shtml
19. http://www.biotechnolog.pl/news-927.htm
20. http://www.wiw.pl/nowinki/biologia/200102/20010215-001.asp
21. http://www.zdrowie.med.pl/nowosc.phtml?start=20&slowo=zdrowsze&nr=1
22. www.ietu.katowice.pl/wpr/Aktualnosci/Czestochowa/Referaty/Klein.pdf
23. http://www.rp.pl/artykul/62966,95367.html?page=2
24. http://www.adelaide.edu.au/ANZCCART/news/15_1.pdf
25. http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/margawati.html
26. http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/gmfood.shtml
27. Milles, N. Genetically modified organisms. 2006
28. http://oregonstate.edu/instruction/bb100/transgenes.html
29. http://www.socialniprava.info/article1882.html
18