ERGO

An 'almost column' about Modified crops as discussion subject among natural and social scientists

2 September 2008

In 1973 the renowned geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky condensed the thoughts of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin in the journal 'The American Biology Teacher' into one famous sentence: "Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution." On the basis of quotations by Dobzhansky of Teilhard de Chardin, it shows that the latter extended the overreaching position of evolution to well beyond biology, evolution was to be regarded as: "...a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow...".
Regardles of the widt of the impact of the evolution theory, modern biotechnology is one of these subjects that have drawn the attention of both natural scientists as well as social scientists. Discussion between these 2 types of scientists normally is quite disappointing, one could hardly justify to call it a 'dialogue'.
Furtermore, the interaction differs with context. In some parts of the world, the majority of cotton plants grown are genetically modified, and so are food and fodder crops such as corn, oilseed rape/canola and soybean. In Europe, on the other hand, gmo's are grown commercially in only a few countries, and on a very limited scale. (An overview over the years 2005-2007 is presented here)
Some social scientists (e.g. Dutch political scientist Van der heijden) are convinced that:

  • "poisonous waste from genetically modified crops is trasported through soil and water and thus reaches the food chain" and
  • "entire ecosystems are harmed as a result of toxic waste reaching water and soil"

The same author mentions:

  • "The current generation of gm-crops does not result in higher yields than do conventionally bred crops..."

Other social scientists (Graham Brooke, economist), however, arrive at quite different conclusions over the period until 2006: 

  • "The amount of active ingredient of agrochemicals was reduced by 224 million kg", and
  • "Over a period of 10 years, growing gmo crops resulted in an extra 24,2 billion dollar for farmers"

But also among the natural scientists (national) differences can be observed:

  • In the Netherlands, the multidisciplinary NWO research programme "The Societal component of Genomics Research" came to an end, and
  • Under the Netherlands genomics Initiative the Center for Society and Genomics was founded several years ago.

In neighbouring Germany, among the editors of 'Laborjournal' (the English language edition of which is called 'Lab Times') at least, social scientists and natural scientists seem to be a lot less 'on speaking terms' with one another. In edition 2008-7/8, the editors even refer to the leftist splinter organisations defending totalitarian regimes, common at German universities in the 1970-ies, to make their point.
Author Ulrich Kutchera had, in an article in edition 2008-06 about the pros and cons of providing emeritus professors an opportunity to keep working at German universities, paraphrased Dobzhansky thus: "Nichts in den Geisteswissenschaften ergibt einen Sinn, auer im Lichte der Biologie." [ Nothing in the social sciences makes sense, except in the light of biology] , which seems well in accordance with the ideas of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. This lead to an angry letter in the 'Süddeutsche Zeitung', a large German daily, on July 6h 2008. Subsequently, the editors fired back in their editorial (but one has to keep in mind that Laborjournal's typical style regularly includes satire and mockery):

  • "Überzeugen konnte uns das Wehgeschrei nicht: So wurde Kutschera unterstellt, er wolle die Geisteswissenschaften dem Diktat der Biologie unterwerfen. Doch verwahrt er sich in seinem Artikel nur davor, dass sich Geisteswissenschaftler in Fragen der Biologie einmischen. Damit hat er recht: Leute die mit Meinungen handeln und ein gestörtes beziehungsweise gar kein Verhältnis zum Experiment und damit zur Wahrheit haben, haben nichts zu sagen, wenn es um wirkliche Dinge geht, und sollten daher schweigen."
    [We were by no means convinced by this crying: for instance the claim that Kutschera would have pleaded to having the social sciences governed by a biological dictorship. But in his article he only objects against social scientists interfering in biological questions. And he is right about that: People that deal with opinions and show a disfunctional relation, or no relation at all, towards experiments and therefore towards the truth, have nothing to say, when real matters are involved, and should therfore shut up].

and, a few lines further down:

  • Und die Schüler dieser Leute [bedoeld worden de leerlingen van de linksradicale sociale wetenschappers uit de 70-er jaren aan Duitse universiteiten] bilden sich heute wieder ein, die Schlausten zu sein. Die wirklichkeitsferne Arbeitsweise der Geisteswissenschaften erzeugt offensichtlich geistige Arroganz. und die finden wir unerträglich".
    [And the students of such people [the author means the students of the leftist social scientists from the 70-ies at German universities] , again tend to imagine themselves, they are currently the cleverest. Their working methods, which are miles off reality breeds intellectual arrogance, abviously. And we cannot bear arrogance].

Apart from, in the last sentences, quite a shot of irony, that distinguishes Laborjournal from other biotechnology- or life sciences magazines, the atmosphere in Germany still seems far off from "working together to tackle various aspects of complex themes facing society, by conducting good research and analyze the matter properly".


In the Netherlands, along with a number of other European countries, the realtions are more normal and the natural-social-sciences-discussion , although falling short of being called a dialogue, can withstand a blast or two.  The article of Van der Heijden may be ill-founded and may be based on inconsistencies in its logic and on fallacies, in teh Netherlands the conviction is wide-spread that this needn't mean, that thérefore, the issues raised need no attention.
Questions regarding health, although gm-plants have been grown for over a decade, still are being studied. Although the differences in attitude are not as wide as van der Heijden suggests, it ís a fact that authorities in Europe address their citizens in quite a different way from how people in other parts of the world are addressed, and for good reasons.
The fact that some have already drawn their conclusions regarding 'poisonous substances' from gmo's and their threat to biodiversity and ecosystems, doesn't justify refraining from having these subjects properly investigated by prominent ecologists. These themes are the subject of research conducted within the RGO framework, as we speak.

source: Theo Saat; editorial "Laborjournal"(2008, 7/8); Jan Wisse in C2W-LS 31 March 2007; Hein-Anton van der Heijden in NRC, 27-08-2008