TED Conversations

Katharine Harborne

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Clear Thinking on GM an biosynthesis Food Politics

This short TED talk challenges the idea that Genetic Modification and Biosynthesis are creating monsters out of plants. The truth is we’ve been genetically modifying plants for millennia, and now we can now do astonishingly good things at a deep molecular level - import, replace and even alter genes in a fundamental way. Plants genes are weird and are constantly modifying themselves genetically whether we get involved or not. I believe this is a time of great opportunity for science and technology, but the opportunities must be harnessed ethically and responsibly. I would love the opportunity to explain more in a longer TED Talk at the TED conference in 2013.

1) VISIT the link below, please
2) WATCH the video, pretty please
3) POST a comment that genuinely reflects your appreciation
4) And SHARE it with your friends, all of them, even the ones you don’t know!

http://talentsearch.ted.com/video/Katharine-Harborne-Lets-rethink;TEDLondon

I realise it’s a BIG ASK, but food politics is a seriously BIG issue.

0
Share:
progress indicator

  • Barry Palmer 50+

    • 0
    Aug 7 2012: Unintended Consequences always occur. Who takes responsibility, and how?

    If a GM crop spreads across the globe and is suddenly and completely destroyed by a virus that takes advantage of the modified gene, causing mass starvation, are the people who modified that gene willing to stand at trial for mass homicide?

    We know almost nothing about the natural world. Of all there is to know about life on this planet, we know next to nothing. The hubris of people who think they can modify genes with impunity is nearly infinite.

    When the proponents of GM sign a statement that they are willing and ready to take complete responsibility for their mistakes, including criminal responsibility for any harm done, and put up a multi-trillion dollar bond
    to cover any monetary losses, then I would be willing to START a serious debate about the subject. Until then, IMO, GM is not a subject for adults to discuss with adults; it is a subject for adults to explain to grown up children that they should not play with things like matches.

    I suggested in another discussion that if we are ever to get any benefit from super powerful technologies like GM, that we need an accepted method, like the scientific method, that would methodically determine all of the possible consequences and produce some measure of the risks involved, so society can decide whether to deploy a particular technology. This method would have to be tested with less powerful technologies first, and the method itself would have to be verified. This will take many years, probably decades.

    Deploying GM now is irresponsible. Adults behave responsibly.
    • thumb

      peter lindsay 30+

      • 0
      Aug 7 2012: Every commercial grain crop grown on the planet is already GM. They were first released in the 50s and have periodically been re-engineered over the last 60 years. At least with modern techniques we know which genes we are changing as apposed to the scatter-gun approach used previously. Google mutagenics.

      • Barry Palmer 50+

        • 0
        Aug 8 2012: Apparently your point is that 60 years is a sufficient test period. How do you know that? Who determined the criteria, how, based on what data?

        And you did not reply to my comment. Who takes responsibility when something goes wrong?
        • thumb

          peter lindsay 30+

          • 0
          Aug 8 2012: My point is it is too late to stop the deployment of GM crops as it has already been done. People just don't realise the wheat in their bread been GM their whole lives. Unless you are over 60 years old you have never eaten non GM wheat or rice or corn.

      • Barry Palmer 50+

        • 0
        Aug 8 2012: I completely understand your point. And my point is that just because you have been doing something that is wrong and irresponsible for sixty years, that is not justification. It is wrong and should stop immediately. No further gene modifications.
  • thumb

    peter lindsay 30+

    • 0
    Aug 7 2012: I have always found it intriguing that people are so obsessed with modern GM crops when we've been eating the results of mutagenics for 60 years. My analogy is, modern GM is like getting a hair cut at the barber and mutagenics is like getting your hair cut by having scissors thrown at you from the other end of the room. Most people just don't know what mutagenics is. They also don't realise that a GM-free label makes about as much sense as "organic" veg. I've never eaten inorganic veg. I'm sure we would all be better off if GM tech is used in a controlled fashion. It's much more likely some one would do something stupid if they are doing GM experiments in secret.
  • thumb

    Lejan . 30+

    • +1
    TED Translator
    Aug 6 2012: ... What it is releasing into the wild?

    And even though I am no geneticist, I am an engineer for aerospace technology only, I do understand what complexity means in even simple technical setups.

    So if it comes to the complexity of NATURE itself I am really surprised about the arrogance of those who claim to know what they are doing while they are manipulating on its basic elements of functionality - the genes!

    I have no problems if people experiment with crossing selected parent plants, trying to cultivate new attributes or to join them. Also I have no problem by the idea, that nature continuously changes the gene-pool herself, by mutation and also by random cross-breeding.

    But I am getting nervous to see how natural limitations and barriers are getting bypassed intentionally, to create something which may have never evolved naturally itself. To me, there is the danger!

    It feels like handing out an explosive construction kit to a toddler at christmas, watching him play, hoping, what he creates may look pretty in color and shape...

    Genetic engineering is the most promising technology I can possible think of at the moment, yet to me it still belongs into non-profit high-security laboratories, long term trials in nature like and isolated environments (like the biosphere project), before we know for certain about the risks to put them out into the wild.

    Scientists are already surprised how quick and widely GM corn genes spread across borders and that they could be found in non GM corn populations and types. Any of those surprises are proof to me, that we don't know what we are doing!

    And what is plan B in case of need? In agriculture we are not even able to fight effectively a sudden swarm of locusts, so what do we do against plants running nuts and amok? I wonder...

    As you are clearly more optimistic on GM food than I am, it would be interesting to me to understand what makes you ease your mind on all of those immanent, systemic and even unknown risks?
  • thumb

    Lejan . 30+

    • +1
    TED Translator
    Aug 6 2012: I agree with you that food politics is a seriously BIG issue and it will become even moreso in the upcoming future.

    I also agree that evolution constantly drives genetical modifications and that mankind did this before in cultivating plants we use as a food source.

    In your view on GM food I am missing that you seem not to reflect any possible risks attached to this new technology, which makes me feel uncomfortable.

    To me, genetic engineering and manipulation is the most powerful technology we are just about to discover and learn and if we are not careful enough we are about to open Pandora's box as well.

    As food has become as BIG an issue, it is already seen as BIG MONEY as well. To me, exactly THIS is the problem.

    The urge and run for big profit has never proofed itself wise and thoughtful in dealing with nature, and we can already see that genetic engineering is used to gain and protect market shares and even to imply monopolies and cruel dependencies, known as 'the battle of seeds' and fought by comanies like Monsanto against small farmers around the globe.

    At the moment renowned economic experts are running short on working concepts to finally fix the financial crisis in Europe and the US, often stating, that THE SYSTEM has grown to complex to foresee its reaction on changes...

    So if we would virtually compare the complexity of our manmade global economics with the whole ralm of nature, of life itself, I highly recommend we better are really really careful 'playing' with it.

    Natural mutation is following laws we are not even able to fully understand as a whole, yet we are already mixing genes only choosen by beneficial properties and not having the slightes clue on any long term consequences.

    We don't even care about species barriers anymore, and therefore leaving natures unkown laws more than just blindly.

    Do you really think that this very young discipline in science is able to tame and to really foresee what they are doing?

    ...
Showing all 8 comments