Genetic Engineering and Ethical Issues

Abstract

Genetic engineering is portrayed as a major scientific and technological revolution, which is what makes it legitimate in the eyes of its supporters. But this is also why some fear it as a dangerous and unnatural interference in living processes. Closer scrutiny of the scientific controversies and debate on the subject of plant GMOs (in which there is most experience) reveals that genetic engineering is sophisticated but nonetheless tinkering with uncertain results, and that, far from unnaturally meddling with life, it actually has to do with controlling (albeit inefficiently) natural processes. According to the backers of GMOs, the ‘irrational’ fears of the public in Europe stand in the way of progress. The reason the public are so scared of consuming GMOs is supposed to be because they do not understand what they are all about. Closer enquiry shows that they are not so much worried about GMOs, as about the inability of the authorities in charge of monitoring this new technology to resist the powerful interests of multinational corporations. Public hostility towards GMOs is more the product of reasoned scepticism than of irrational fear.

Keywords

consumers multinationals risk precautionary principle GMOs

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Atlan

(1999), La fin du ‘tout génétique’? Vers de nouveaux paradigmes en biologie, collection Sciences en Question, INRA Éditions, Paris.

Houdebine

L.-M.

(1996), Le génie génétique de l'animal à l'homme? collection Dominos, Flammarion, Paris.

Joly

P.-B.

(2001), ‘Les OGM entre la science et le public? Quatre modèles pour la gouvernance de l'innovation et des risques’, Economie Rurale, Vol 266, November–December, pp 11–29.

Joly

P.-B.

Assouline

Kreziak

Lemarié

Marris

, and Roy

(2000), L'innovation controversée: le débat public sur les OGM en France, Rapport pour la DGAF du Ministère de l'Agriculture et de la Pêche, Paris.

Jonas

(1979), Le principe responsabilité (French translation, 1990), Éditions du Cerf, Paris.

Kahn

(1996), Société et révolution biologique – Pour une éthique de la responsabilité, collection Sciences en Questions, INRA, Paris.

Larrère

(1998), ‘Le génie génétique entre science et rhétorique’, in Végétaux transgéniques – Les enjeux pour la santé et l'environnement – journal POUR, Vol 159, September, pp 165–172.

Larrère

(2000), ‘Faut-il avoir peur du génie génétique?’ Cahiers Philosophiques de Strasbourg, Vol 10, Autumn, pp 11–48.

Larrère

(2001), entry, ‘Organismes génétiquement modifiés’, in Canto-Sperber

, ed, Dictionnaire d'éthique et de philosophie morale, PUF, Paris.

10.

Larrère

(2002a), ‘Agriculture: Artificialisation ou manipulation de la nature’, Cosmopolitiques, Vol 1, pp 158–173.

11.

Larrère

(2002b), ‘Ethique et expérimentation animale’, Natures, Sciences, Sociétés, Vol 10, No 1, January-March, pp 24–32.

12.

Larrère

, and Larrère

(2000), ‘Les OGM entre hostilité de principe et principe de précaution’, Cités, Vol 4, pp 34–58.

13.

Marris

(2001), ‘La perception des OGM par le public: Remise en cause de quelques idées reçues’, in Economie Rurale, Vol 266, November–December, pp 58–79.

14.

Mayr

(1961), ‘Cause and effect in biology’, Science, Vol 134, pp 1501–1506.

15.

Slovic

(1987), ‘Perception of risk’, Science, Vol 236, pp 280–285.

16.

Sylvander

, and Leusie

(2001), ‘La déqualification des OGM aux yeux des consommateurs: Des attitudes aux conceptions’, Economie Rurale, Vol 266, November–December, pp 45–57.