In Dane Scott’s “The Technological Fix Criticisms and the Agricultural Biotechnology Debate, ” the question of whether genetically modified food contributes to well being is raised. Scott raises the question within the context of instrumentalism wherein science is put to work on the premise that science is  primarily “‘an activity which produces knowledge with predication power and capacity for control’’’ (Scott 5). Scott’s concern following critiques of instrumental knowledge is that science is put to work to solve problems that are primarily social such that science must solve the very problems it has in part fostered. Scott uses the example of the “The Golden Rice Bowl Experiment” and he notes that putting vitamin A in rice did in fact go a long way towards addressing a malnutrition problem in highly economically deprived areas but that really the solution to nutrition is one of economics and social activism. On the level of logic, I could not agree more.  We need not look far back into history to see how World powers have influenced economic situations all over the world only to cause immense starvation and poverty. We still witness the nightmarish legacy of colonialism and imperialism in our day to day lives every time we pick up a newspaper. With that being said, just what answer does Scott have in mind for this part of the world. Malnutrition happens quickly and it can devastate whole populations in relatively short time periods.

On the other hand, like Scott, I agree that with moments of successful genetic modification like these, we have more than opened the door to something I am not at all sure of. Chiasmus. We have significantly modified all sorts of agricultural plants all over the earth. We do this, of course, in the name of science and we do do it to solve social problems we cannot solve. Whether we modify corn to increase profit yields only to negatively impact ecosystems that require the worms that we destroy in the process or we modify rice simply to cut back on methane and damage to the atmosphere, we do modify plants at genetic levels, and we do for all sorts of reasons. There is no question instrumentalism is a big part of genetic modification and it is often a band aid solution for much bigger social problems. I wonder though if this kind of thinking isn’t part of the larger social process though. Saving lives is important. Saving ecosystems is really important too. If we act instrumentally to save one or both even though we (as in economically and politically) are really the problems is that a bad thing?

I return to Kant again his categorical imperative to act for the beneficience of society and I agree that he left the plants out of this imperative and certainly that was not for the beneficience of society now that I think of this. Maybe he had eating disorders, I don’t know, but if he could rewrite his some of his thinking I am certain the plants would make it in there and so would ecosystems. Kant also wrote that the simplest approach was usually best from the point of view of making rational decisions quickly. Saving lives and appreciating nutritional needs may be only instrumental but there is a social, ethical side to this. A quick and immediate solution buys time to work on economic priorities as well as a plan to resource a population further. If there was thought put into how these rice plants in modified form thereby impacted the environment as well as saved human life…well that is to the beneficience of all (as in including the environment). Should that thought be there we are now instrumental, social, and ecologically more aware. Not bad.

On the flip side, I can hardly deny that genetic modifications of plants have done damage. Bananas are a genetically modified food, even an over cloned food. Whatever bananas were…we haven’t a clue now. Bananas are genetically degraded now nor will they be restored. We have very nearly used up this plant and food. When we consider how many people bananas help to feed yearly, the loss of this food source is serious. Genetically modifying this fruit was not to our advantage in the long term nor was it to its eco-regions. This time we have not acted for the beneficience for all even if this food source in the past (especially during the depression years) has saved more lives than we will ever count. Genetic modification was clearly instrumental and ultimately thoughtless with regard to subsequent damage to the plant species.

With these thoughts in mind, I am ambivalent but not entirely. I do not have an answer to a debate that pits instrumentalism against a need for social change. In fact, my thinking leans towards instrumentalism in service to larger agendas for not only social change but changes that secure and promote ecosystem health and well being. Ethical approaches help to think these issues through further even if we cannot solve the problems outright. A Kantian approach that centers upon ecosystems and our roles in them seems best to be. Banning genetic modification during the Rice Bowl Experiment would have killed more people than I dare count but this does not mean that we have the right radically alter our environments in the process. We really don’t know what we eat all the time. There are ingredients in food that aid human digestion processes and there are ingredients in food that aid animal digestion processes, and I am certain we do not know what it all is yet nor are we likely too. Therefore, we must consider the well being of all and not just ourselves but we should not be afraid to save life in the process.

Tammy

 

 

Scott, Dane. “The Technological Fix Criticisms and the Agricultural Biotechnology Debate.” J Agric Environ Ethics (2011) 24:207–226