From Robin Oakley-Hill
Sevenoaks, Kent
In your editorial you say the public might be frightened if they are told
that a food product is genetically engineered (9 March, p 3). But a recent
problem arose because the public was “protected” from the truth about government
guidelines on arms sales. (Maybe in some cases the food is not genetically
changed, but only genetically “relaxed”.)
When attempts are made to “reassure the public” this usually implies that the
scientist is on the side of the producer against the consumer. This is usually
true, (a) because the producer provides the scientist’s job, and (b) because the
scientist is often developing a product that’s looking for a market. In the case
in question, when the drum roll fades out and the smoke clears, the public is
supposed to be staring spellbound at Marvo the Magician unveiling three small
but perfectly formed genetically engineered tomatoes.
As a purchaser, I have no problem with existing tomatoes and tomato paste. It
is the producers’ and retailers’ problem, and I have no incentive to do them the
favour of buying a genetically engineered product.
Advertisement
What society really wants, whether consciously or not, are things like a
Dorian Gray tablet to get rid of old age, or a matter transmitter to deal with
excess traffic. Science cannot provide these (whether through lack of funding or
simple impossibility), so it gives us funny tomatoes and a cooking oil that is
all fart and no fat (This Week, 25 November 1995, p 10). Of course this isn’t
the responsibility of “science”. But the science establishment does tend to be
on the side of trivial progress. Newton and Pasteur would turn in their graves
on learning that scientists were employed to make food less nutritious.
On TV programmes one can easily distinguish between the tame scientist
(fenced in by the corporation) and the wild scientist (rampaging around the
campus). We need more wild scientists and less genetically engineered pap.
