Why do they not listen?

Robert Anderson BSc(Hons) PhD

4 February 1942 to 5 December 2008

 First published in Healthy Options June 2003

 

It appears that Helen Clark and her UK counterpart, Tony Blair, share the same view of science, that it is a collection of irrefutable, neutral 'facts' divorced from ethics or politics, and independent of any damage which may ensue from its exploitation.

The rationale to pursue the conspicuously fruitless technology of genetic engineering (GE) – notwithstanding the environmental implications - may well plunge New Zealand into an economic morass from which it may never recover. GE biotechnology benefits are speculative, not proven. And, as molecular biologist Professor Terje Traavik commented on these 'benefits' recently to the British government, "We may see a BSE in Technicolor." The Government's naive positivism, as far as the GE biotechnology issue is concerned, has also become endemic to our scientific establishments, which effectively gives scientists carte blanche to do the bidding of industrial masters. The result is that irresponsible, discredited science and dangerous, useless technologies continue to be foisted on society in the name of 'leaving our options open' or pursuing the 'knowledge wave'. The disproportionate concentration of research funding directed at market-orientated biotechnology is far from conducive to scientific creativity.

The genetics revolution has failed to deliver

Unlike the boom created by the computer and the Internet, medical biotechnology is expensive and many of its products are applicable only to a very few of the population. As far as agriculture goes, virtually all GE crops are beset with problems. None have improved the quality or nutritional value of our food, nor are they likely to feed the starving millions with most producing a yield 'drag' to date.

The latest concept of 'conditional release' will not stand even reasonable scrutiny. Contamination from GE crops is widespread, whether it be by horizontal gene transfer, commingling of seed or yield, cross pollination or other means. Conditional release is merely a precursor to opening the door to commercial cropping.

Monsanto's love of seasonal opportunism - using this hemisphere for a second year's crop - will no doubt be amply rewarded. It has even been suggested by those 'in the know' that a small field trial could be used for multiple transgenic crops to create even greater potential for contamination. Once contamination of the New Zealand environment was established, it would be a case of why fight it, it's here already.  The inability of Ministers to see - or refusal to see – the obvious failures of genetic engineering biotechnology is inexcusable. This, together with the reliance on the now-dated recommendations of a Royal Commission on Genetic Modification (RCGM) too frightened to upset the establishment, is lamentable. Such evidence as that of the Tryptophan disaster, which killed several dozen and crippled hundreds more, was not subpoenaed, leading to such comments as 'we were not convinced' (that it was GE). Had the RCGM subpoenaed evidence, the verdict would certainly have been a resounding 'no' to GE food - not a conclusion those cuddling up to the biotechnology industry were willing to give.

Recently, the engineered anaemia drug, Eprex, produced by Johnson & Johnson, has been credited as being the cause of 141 cases of pure red cell aplasia, a serious condition in which the body cannot produce red blood cells. It is claimed that, not only did Eprex prove ineffective, it contributed to anaemia more severe than that existing before the drug was taken. Authorities have not found the cause. Will GE continue to be the technology used? Experts admit the production of engineered drugs is not as predictable as conventional methods.

After 30 years, how many breakthrough products has GE biotechnology produced? The medical bonanza has come and gone. Gene therapy, heralded as a medical wonder, has actually harmed more people than it has helped. Recent trials in France had to be stopped after a child patient showed symptoms of leukaemia. The few drugs derived from GE, such as insulin, simply replace existing products while creating new risks. Looking back on the products of GE biotechnology in the field of therapeutics, the prestigious medical journal, the Lancet, comments that there is “very little to show for much investment”. The two best-known products - human insulin and interferon - have failed to fulfil expectations, the former causing hypoglycaemic episodes and the latter proving of marginal therapeutic value in a wide range of conditions. Hundreds of deaths and thousands of unwanted side-effects have been noted in the US, Canada, Britain and elsewhere. It also took almost two decades to perfect the process for the production of 'Humalin'. A Hepatitis B vaccine and the production of erythropoietin, which has been widely used in the treatment of anaemia in chronic renal failure, have been a little more successful, although serious adverse effects from the Hepatitis B vaccine are mounting. In his critical survey of the 'new genetics', James LeFanu noted the contrast between a “relentless catalogue of failed aspirations” and a “pervasive belief in its limitless possibilities”.¹Currently, 99 per cent of medical research is about making money, not curing people. This, aided and abetted by an immoral patent system in which genes and body parts are treated as inventions, effectively stifles medical research and the free flow of information.

New Zealand has all the trappings of a democracy: an elected parliament, a reasonably literate population, more than one political party, a local media (albeit controlled by a few corporations and individuals) and freedom of speech. One could, therefore, logically assume that the public would have a reasonable say on something as essential and personal as food and health. This has not been the case. The latest Discussion Paper on the HSNO Act is just another hollow public relations exercise; a pacifier leading consumers into believing they share an input in government decisions. The decisions may already have been made. I believe that Government has a strong interest in keeping much of its biotechnology policy decisions outside of public scrutiny. The almost 900 'against' and seven 'for' submissions to the Environmental Risk Management Authoity (ERMA) on putting human and other genes into cows were ignored and the application approved. While liability is carefully avoided, discussion papers are put out, public hearings for the ERMA submissions are organised, and 'stakeholder consultations' are organised to include those who might arouse the larger public if excluded. While the industry itself has never made any real attempt to inform the public on the technology. The now defunct 'Genepool' demonstrated the deceitful nature of attempts to inform consumers. Half was paid for by Monsanto and the rest by the tax payer, but consumers were expected to pay dearly for entrance tickets to which farmers and growers received free invitations.

The New Zealand Government buries the lack of democracy in a pile of rhetoric, borrowed from a sham Royal Commission, with statements such as 'keeping our options open' or maintaining 'transparency'. What is most puzzling is the Government's aggressive support for the genetic engineering biotechnology industry when there are so many reasons to back away. The vast majority of New Zealanders do not want to eat GE-food. There are many international scientists advising against genetic engineering because it is a flawed science. Most of the medical fraternity are concerned that we are not following the precautionary approach. I have it on good authority that as many as 50 per cent of the scientists employed in our CRIs want a precautionary approach, but are constrained from speaking out. But perhaps the most important aspect is the huge drain that the genetic engineering biotechnology industry takes from public resources at the expense of sound and proven research. Failing to follow the GE biotechnology path will not result in New Zealand slipping back to a banana state, but neglecting more worthwhile research almost certainly will. To add to the public's confusion, for everything they read about adverse effects of GE, there are well-credentialed scientists saying the exact opposite. We may as well be in a hall of mirrors. This is the world of GE biotechnology politics: an arena where ordinary consumers have to teach themselves complex terms such as 'genomes' and 'deoxyribonucleic acid'; where scientists are at each other's throats, dismissing a sincere colleague's research work with spiteful scorn rarely seen in other areas of science.

The dynamics of scientific denial and the 'Delphi' technique

When we consider denial, what comes to mind is someone knowing the 'truth' but pretending not to. In fact, the process of denial is a highly complex psychological dynamic in which a person is actually not experiencing their own understanding. Denial has a useful, healthy purpose for our ego structure. When we lose our job or a loved one dies, it is a way to keep overpowering fear or grief at bay while coming to terms with the loss. An unhealthy example of denial is a drug addict rationalising his habit in delusional ways.

The Delphi technique is another unethical method of achieving consensus on controversial topics. It is ideally suited to the issues of GE-food and GE biotechnology 'wonders'. It requires well-trained professionals - in the GE biotechnology case, government-appointed ones - used as 'facilitators' or 'change agents' who deliberately escalate tension among the various groups, pitting one faction against another to make a preordained viewpoint appear 'sensible' while making opposing views appear ridiculous.

In her book, Educating for the New World Order, author and educator Beverly Eakman makes numerous references to the need of those in power to preserve the illusion that there is 'community participation in decision-making processes, while in fact lay citizens are being squeezed out'.²

Psychologists and those studying the process of lying and such methods as the Delphi technique, observed whole communities, organisations and assorted official bodies can manifest group denial. This seems to happen most often when the subject under review is complex, such as genetic engineering biotechnology and the nuclear industry, or has important implications for vested interest and maintaining the status quo. Organisational denial is closely linked to another unproductive process that leads to group paralysis. This is known as 'groupthink'.

This psychological dynamic develops within a decision-making organisation in which loyalty to the group or the need to reach a consensus becomes more vital than solving the problems at hand. It is a subtle phenomenon, which participating individuals often fail to recognise, but its by-product is the suppression, elimination, dismissal or reinterpretation of dissenting information. Groupthink requires several forms of lying to maintain the status quo, including the ignoring or omission of facts, selective memory and/or denial. The subject of genetic engineering has impacted on scientific denial and groupthink more often than any other subject, and it continues to do so. Whistleblowers are offered no protection so that public continue to suffer in a conspiracy of silence.

Public safety and health

One would hope that any errors made were in favour of consumer safety and health, but this has not been the case, especially in the overtly pro-business practices of the multinationals desperate to control the world's food and seed supplies. The benefit of the doubt has automatically been given to the products and the manufacturing corporation with the burden of proving harm transferred to the public. This approach, of course, rests on the cynical assumption that no lay person will be able to prove anything in the face of contradictory 'scientific' evidence. An appalling omission in the regulation of GE-foods was illustrated when the FDA bureaucrats simply ignored the warnings of its own scientists.

The smorgasbord of greed and jealousies generated by this industry has provided a fertile ground for the biggest civil rights movement in history. Growing public disquiet is becoming steadily more intense as the industry, aided by its spin doctors, constantly takes the moral high ground of feeding the starving poor and working their research fingers to the bone to provide more nutritious foods for the consumer. To date, these have not materialised. The industry uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts - for support rather than illumination. They assume people cannot be trusted to make scientific or political decisions because they are irrational, emotional and illogical.

This cynical view of the public is widely held by PR industry experts and the scientific experts they employ to 'guide' the public and, in many cases, governments. An excellent way to maintain the status quo is to pit opposing scientists against each other as they have in the GE biotechnology issues.

For twenty-five years now, the narrow agenda of genetic engineering has dominated scientific discussions in both the public and private domains, corrupting scientific discourse while enriching those researchers who are most willing to feed at the corporate trough. It is time for a much more honest discussion of how science can best benefit human health and well being. It is time for the Government to evaluate corporate propaganda and start listening to what consumers really think about GE. As David Hume so aptly put it, "There is no such thing as freedom of choice unless there is freedom to refuse."

 

Robert Anderson BSc(Hons) PhD

Robert Anderson was a Quaker, teacher and writer. He was a Trustee of Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility (www.psgr.org.nz), a member of Amnesty International, a Theosophist, and a campaigner for peace and disarmament. He believed everyone has the right to equality and respect, freedom of speech and religion He lectured on many subjects to meet the public's right to be independently informed on issues of science, the environment and social justice. He was passionate about making this world a better place for the generations to come. He authored eleven books and regularly wrote for a number of periodicals.

Enquiries for books written by Robert Anderson should be addressed to  naturesstar@xtra.co.nz

 

For further information see:

GE Free New Zealand in food and environment www.gefree.org.nz/

GE Free Northland in food and environment http://web.gefreenorthland.org.nz/

Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility www.psgr.org.nz

Sustainability Council of New Zealand http://www.sustainabilitynz.org/

The Soil & Health Association / Organic New Zealand http://organicnz.org.nz/

 

References:

' Lefanu, James 1999, The Rise and Ml of Modern Medicine, Little Srown, p 306.

2 Using the Delphi Technique to Achieve Consensus (on-line), available URL: http:/

/www. eagleforum. org/educate/19 98/nov98/focus.html