Guilty until proven innocent–that seems to be the fate of bioengineered food as fear once again sweeps the land. It matters not that biotech products, approved for safety by all U.S. regulatory bodies, have been consumed by Americans for a decade. Nor do history’s lessons count–early attempts at fearmongering by anti-biotech activists fizzled as the public rejected protests that degenerated into threats and intimidation. None of the nightmares forecast by doomsayers has come to pass: no dead babies from genetically engineered milk, no mutant viruses on the rampage, no contamination of the food chain by killer tomatoes. Regardless, supermarket-picketing European biotech bashers are reliving the past with a vengeance, and the food fights have spread to the U.S. in less than a year. The top American academic research institutions are banking their futures on the genetics revolution even as growing numbers of activists seem determined to scuttle it. Duke University recently announced the biggest gamble so far. The man who designed it, Dr. Ralph Snyderman, explains why.
Q: Duke is known for discoveries about the genetic basis of Alzheimer’s disease, heart disease and breast cancer, and is testing genetically engineered cancer vaccines, gene therapy for sickle cell disease and genetic approaches for strengthening failing hearts. You are about to launch a $225 million Institute for Genome Sciences and Policy to face the possibilities offered by the completion of the Human Genome Project. Why does the furor over bioengineered foods scare you?
A: Because it’s not based on scientific fact but on speculation and panic. The biotech industry tried to educate the British public, but the effort didn’t work. It’s so easy to undercut the facts with a trivial statement, say `Frankenfoods.’ That’s all people have to hear, and if they don’t know anything about genetics, it scares them.
I’m particularly concerned by those I see here jumping on the Frankenfood bandwagon. It’s the so-called liberal intelligentsia in sympathy with the Green Movement. Even intelligent people are showing they have a blind spot to something that really requires some thought and study before you have an informed opinion. I wish I had an easy answer to all this because my frustration gets personal–I have to deal with these things in my own family.
Q: You see hypocrisy in it, don’t you?
A: Yes. On the one hand, the so-called intellectual elite of the United States are eager to enjoy the fruits of genetics: We want to live forever and look to gene tests to warn us of potential problems and gene drugs to help us. We demand tPA for our heart attacks (tissue plasminogen activator is a genetically engineered clotbusting drug) and other miracle compounds.
Yet at the same time, we are the ones who can afford to shop at the very expensive organic foods stores and to patronize restaurants that won’t serve bioengineered food.
Q: We all love nature, except for the Ebola virus, flesh-eating bacteria and myriad other beasties. The natural foods movement seems harmless enough. Let people eat what they can afford, if they can afford it. What’s wrong with that?
A: Nothing, except that the protest movement has no basis in science. Genes in nature get mixed and matched constantly. One of the things we’re learning from genomics is how much a crapshoot life is. Why, our immune systems keep us alive because every day we’re rolling the dice and creating potentials to recognize something foreign. That’s the way life works.
But in any case, who are we–the affluent in the United States–that we can be so arrogant as to want to decide what’s in the best interests of Malaysia and other impoverished places that need these things? World hunger is a terrible problem. Why try to kill the one industry that offers some hope?
Q: A Nigerian agricultural minister recently wrote: “To deny desperate, hungry people the means to control their futures by presuming to know what is best for them is not only paternalistic but morally wrong. ” Many people would agree.
A: Yes. But I fear that the U.S. may be intimidated about bioengineering, pressured by the Europeans and our own Greens. Corporations will be so concerned by the bottom line, they won’t want to take a hit overseas with these products–so they’ll just back away. This revolution will sink if it loses the support of the public.
Q: The Human Genome Project will likely open up a similar can or worms, won’t it?
A: In my field, genomics, we really need to think things through. The limiting factors will be controversies over legal, ethical and financial issues, but an outspoken, charismatic adversary who’s spouting off about the end of the world could ruin the whole thing. And there are plenty of adversaries out there, people who want nothing to do with biotechnology.
Q: According to a new public opinion poll released by the Alliance For Better Foods, nearly two-thirds of Americans support the use of biotechnology in food and agriculture. The same percentage sees biotechnology as a solution to world hunger. Isn’t that encouraging? Why are so many people still afraid?
A: Our kind of science doesn’t lend itself to sound bites. It takes more than a millisecond to become educated in genetics and recombinant DNA technology. But it doesn’t take that long for something to scare the hell out of you.
Q: But great possibilities often come with great problems. Isn’t this stuff too important to leave to the scientists? Throughout history, you’ve been more concerned about how to do things, rather than considering the implications.
A: Exactly. That’s why we’re investing $250 million in our institute. It is a university-wide project involving not just our biologists and basic and clinical biomedical researchers, but also our scholars in law, business, economics, public policy, ethics, religion and the environment.
We are by no means unique in this, but we don’t believe any other university has achieved this level of commitment from a broad range of scholars.
The challenges posed by the Human Genome Project are different from any we’ve known in the past. But so are the opportunities. We want to be ready.
Q: Will you explain the personalization of risk and why that will be important?
A: Sure. Advances in genomics will enable us to use highly sophisticated diagnostic techniques to map in fine detail a person’s major susceptibilities to disease.
Understanding these risk analyses and the genetic causes of illness will allow the creation of new models of health care as well as an infinite number of highly specific therapeutics. These will include many protein and small-molecule therapeutics that interfere with or enhance specific genetic functions, and cell therapies for such purposes as restoring function in immune or muscle diseases or neurological function in Parkinson’s disease
Q: The role that genes play in disease is a matter of great debate, is it not?
A: Yes, it is. Many things that make us sick come from the environment. But it’s estimated that somewhere between 30 and 70 percent of what happens to your health will depend on your genes.
Q: How soon do you see things really changing because of the Genome Project?
A: I’d guess that within 5 to 10 years we’ll see a total shift in the health-care system from focusing on disease treatment to prospective planning for health enhancement. We’ll visit our physicians not just to reactively receive treatment for a disorder, but to proactively plan to minimize disease and maximize health.
That’s a big dream. And for us at Duke and many other scientists at other places it’s worth the gamble. For one thing, we know that it’s based on science, not bad science fiction.
Q: How have you dealt with quandaries brought about by this new technology?
A: We’re trying as best we can. When you do as much genetics work as Duke, you accumulate an enormous DNA database and family histories. Two years ago, our faculty proposed that the medical center pioneer a large-scale genetics screening program for high-risk diseases. They were excited by the potential of our Center for Human Genetics, with its databank of tens of thousands of family DNA samples to explore the causes of genetic diseases.
But other thoughtful faculty members–particularly our medical ethicist Jeremy Sugarman–pointed out that there had been disturbingly little study of the legal, ethical and political implications to guide the proper use of this information. The proposal had been so exciting that it blew me away. But I realized the other issues would stop us from doing it.
For example, one of our investigators identified a gene that is a strong susceptibility gene for Alzheimer’s disease. But do we have the right to test someone for susceptibility when we know the chance of getting it may only be 50 percent–damn high, but still, at least half the time those who test positive for the gene won’t get the disease.
And right now, there’s nothing that we can do for Alzheimer’s. That was another consideration. And third, what happens to that information? Can we be sure it will be kept totally private? Do we have an obligation to inform anyone about what the gene test shows?
We decided not to have a broad genetic testing facility. Other places have decided to go ahead. These issues are nightmarishly complex. I think the ethical, legal and social policy concerns will be more limiting that even the technology as genomics advances.
———-
An edited transcript
