February 17, 2011 | 28 comments
January 31, 2011 | 12 comments
December 10, 2010 | 34 comments
November 19, 2010 | 33 comments
November 6, 2010 | 87 comments
The biggest barriers to scientific progress often come from environmentalists, which is ironic, because they often claim to carry the banner of good science.
On Thursday, Mr. Obama’s Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues released a report which cautiously approved research focused on creating so-called “synthetic life.” (The “synthetic” bacterium— known as Mycoplasma laboratorium— was actually just a normal bacterium, the natural DNA of which had been replaced by laboratory-made DNA. While impressive, this hardly constitutes creating life from scratch.)
Predictably, environmentalists were outraged. What exactly they were outraged about, however, still remains unclear. Back in May, when this breakthrough was first announced, a member of a Canadian environmental organization called ETC Group, said: “We know that lab-created life-forms can escape and become biological weapons, and that their use threatens existing natural biodiversity.” Statements such as this essentially prove that many environmental groups are ignorant of basic biology and the current state of biotechnology.
First, if a scientist wanted to create a biological weapon, he most certainly does not need to make one from scratch in the laboratory. Mother Nature herself has been conducting a very long evolutionary experiment, and she has produced plague, Ebola, anthrax, smallpox, malaria, swine flu, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and a whole host of other highly fatal infections. Even though evil creatures could be dreamed up in the laboratory, Mother Nature will almost certainly invent something far more creative and destructive.
Second, environmentalists clearly misunderstand the current state of biotechnology. It is standard practice in biological laboratories to insert or delete genes. Your correspondent has himself created dozens of strains of genetically-modified bacteria using these common methods. The technology to alter bacteria (and hence, the ability to modify existing microbes into super-killers in the laboratory) has existed for a couple of decades. The “synthetic” bacterium does not represent any new terrorist threat and is simply the extension of an existing, commonplace technology.
Finally, the accusation that the technology will threaten natural biodiversity is incredibly premature and likely exaggerated. It is true that any genetically-modified organisms should be tested for both human and ecological safety. However, the environmentalists have already concluded that the technology is unsafe, even before the technology has been put to practical use. They have already declared the defendant “guilty,” but the trial has yet to start.
Until environmentalists can prove that they at least paid attention in high school biology class, it will be difficult to take their concerns seriously.
Alex B. Berezow is the editor of RealClearScience. He holds a Ph.D. in microbiology.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?