Dear Presiding Committee
I am dismayed by the content of the « Open letter from the Scientific Community on Green Genetic Engineering », which you kindly communicated to us it in the June 20230 Newsletter :
https://www.oeaw.ac.at/en/news/open-letter-for-a-science-based-assessment-of-green-genetic-engineering
First of all, I am dismayed by the title. I am a member of the scientific community, especially the Austrian one, since I am a foreign member of the ÖAW and hold a honorary doctorate from UWien, but I do not remember ever being asked my opinion on Green Genetic Engineering, nor do I remember the issue being discussed within the ÖAW. I strongly disagree with the contents of the letter, and I resent the implication that it represents the unanimous views of the scientific community. It may represent the personal views of the signatories, but its title creates the impression that the institutions they direct, and the scientific community at large, share these views, which is far from being the case.
« The scientific community » goes beyond plant biologists, and includes specialists of ecosystems, economists, sociologists, psychologists, historians, political scientists. Your letter focuses on the technical possibilites opened by gene editing with "genetic scissors" (CRISPR/Cas), such as « breeding plants that are more productive, resilient, healthy, compatible and adapted to a changing environment ». How does it affect other functions of the plant, such as biological defenses ? What are the consequences on animals (including humans) of eating genetically modifying plants ? What is the long-term impact of these techniques on ecosystems, including agrosystems ? What do economists have to say about a technology that would certainly be licensed, so that seeds and crops worldwide would be owned by a few conglomerates ? Have sociologists studied the impact of such technologies on subsistence agriculture and on small farmers, which constitute the vast majority of peasants ? The question of what food we eat, and what it does to us, is fundamental in human societies, and should not be decided by technology alone.
Last, but not least, you state : « Science is advocating legal assessment of plants after editing their genes using the same procedures as for plants deriving from conventional breeding ». No. Science does not advocate anything. Scientists do, and scientists are a very diverse lot. There are various scientific disciplines which look at the world with different tools, criterias and interests, and various positions within each discipline. It is obvious, for instance, that plant biologists stand to gain from the liberalisation of genetic engineering, which would immediately translate into more funding from public and private sources. When research is supported by industry, this creates a conflict of interest, which has been well studied by economists . « Experts », more often than not, have acquired their experience by working in the industry, and have internalized its core values rather than the public interest. The lessons history teaches us are not pretty ones. From the tobacco industry denyng the cancerogeneous effect of tobacco, to the oil industry denying climate change, examples abound of industries sponsoring research with the aim of delaying regulation.
Above all, I find it extremely dangerous to state, as you do, that « Science » is advocating anything. Not so long ago, and not so far from us, there was a so-called racial « science », the proponents of which qualified as « scientists » or « experts », and intervened in public policy in the name of « Science », setting the stage to one of the worst pages of European history. This shows that scientists are not above morals or politics, and that scientific arguments must be weighed against each other (the sociologist must be heard as well as the biologist) and also against others, coming from ethics and beliefs, and our desire of living together. Ultimately, decisions about society must be taken in common, and not confined within a small range of self-defined « experts »
I consider that the Presiding Committee has failed in its duty to represent the members of the ÖAW, has given the public a wrong view of the scientific issues aroung Genetic Engineering, be it green, brown or purple, and has engaged the ÖAW into a very dangerous path, which has led before to catastrophic outcomes. I hope that you will change course and engage into a truly interdisciplinary debate, taking into account the concerns of present and future generations
Ivar Ekeland