Genetic Engineering: A Challenge for Engineers

1 SPRING 2002 THE BENT OF TAU BETA PI 33 Genetic Engineering: A Challenge for Engineersby Robert L. Manning, New York Beta 49HE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE discussed inthis article transgenic biotechnology isvitally important and very complex. It hasgenerated heated controversy and some ex-treme reactions on both sides of the issue. Thepowerful biotechnology frequently referred toas Genetic engineering deserves the atten-tion of Engineers ; there are serious questionssurrounding its widespread application, particularly inthe case of products of transgenic biotechnology, thetransfer of genes between species. Naming this process engineering is, in my view, entirely inappropriate anda misreading of the true nature of that , as I believe most Engineers understandand practice it, involves the carefully calculated, respon-sible application of well-understood principles in accor-dance with established public and professional standardsto produce results that are both safe and beneficial tosociety.

2 It may be conventional or innovative, but theindividual engineer is always accountable for the resultsof his or her work. None of these criteria seems to applyto biotechnology using direct Genetic manipulation tocreate new life forms based on the discoveries of who has tried to introduce, almost anywherein the United States, a new, better but unconventionalbuilding construction material, whether an improvedfastener or an innovative structural panel system (myown experience), is aware of the extensive and rigoroustesting and certification requirements that must be metbefore the new product can be used in buildings. Whileimposing such requirements arguably slows the pace ofinnovation, it is unquestionably a major reason whybuildings in this country are among the safest in such system of required testing and certificationis in place for the introduction on farms and in marketsof new food crops or meats from organisms modified bydirect transfer of Genetic material to express specificproperties intended as improvements over the proper-ties of the original food plant and animal products of modern biotechnol-ogy already introduced or being studied for introductioninto foods and the natural environment are identifiablydifferent from any previously existing organism.

3 Theycould not have been produced using traditional breedingtechniques developed by man (and evolutionary nature)over the centuries. Neither could they have been cre-ated using more modern plant or animal opposition to the introduction of geneticallymodified organisms into foods and the environmentcomes from diverse groups from scientists with de-tailed technical knowledge and experience in this fieldwho are concerned about the potential for ecologicaldisaster, to parents worried about the possible effects ofgenetically modified foods on the health of their biotechnology industry has mobilized its consid-erable resources to defend the technology and its prod-ucts.

4 There seems, however, to be a striking inconsis-tency in the past and present positions of the companies for years argued vehementlyagainst the concept of generic equivalence of thera-peutic products marketed by other companies genericmanufacturers after an original patent had took this position even when chemical andphysical testing showed the patented and generic prod-ucts to be essentially identical. The companies holdingthe original patents argued, with some logic it seemedthen, that such testing was not adequate to demonstratethe safety or efficacy of the unpatented generic productand was much less rigorous than the testing requiredbefore the original patent holder could market the the same or related organizations appear to bedevoting similar energy and resources to argue a contraryposition.

5 The producers and marketers of genetically modi-fied, patented products claim that their products are equivalent to the original (unpatented, of course) plantsor animals, and therefore extensive testing for long-termeffects should not be required to demonstrate that theyare safe for human consumption and introduction into thenatural environment, or even that they are effective indoing what was assumption seems to go something like this: If itlooks like corn, and we call it corn, it s corn and will besafe and act like corn when released in the environmentand ingested by humans (even though no such plantever existed). This article presents the dangers in suchan assumption and offers ideas for needed regulation ofbiotechnology the past few years, I have asked questions ofhighly qualified people working in the field and ex-changed with them ideas on the subject.

6 Some of thesepeople strongly favor the widespread application of thistechnology, but others believe that it presents , 11:48 AM3334 SPRING 2002 THE BENT OF TAU BETA PIrecord of the deliberations leading to the decision topromote the use of this far-reaching new is strong private industrial motivation to pro-mote wide application of the technology. Large manufac-turers and feed companies, in their search for growthand enhanced profits, are actively promoting dissemina-tion of the technology and its products at considerableexpense and without malicious intent. The momentumhas grown rapidly, with programs by multinational com-panies focusing their efforts particularly on the intro-duction of transgenic crops in the developing are joined in these efforts by some well-inten-tioned not-for-profit foundations and individuals whohave been convinced that the technology is an effectiveway to deal with hunger in the poorest familiar with all aspects of this serious andmany-faceted problem or world hunger make a contraryargument that introduction of genetically modifiedpatented crops will destroy traditional agriculture andcreate even more suffering for the people of these impover-ished lands.

7 And they point to many other ways to attackthe tragic problem of hungry families in the third world. Afew of these alternatives are mentioned anticipated profitability of the technology, whichunderlies the push for its rapid dissemination, is basedon Genetic patents that the Supreme Court has ruled areallowable. This decision has generated some contro-versy, and there is a possibility that it may some day bereviewed by the court. For the present, it makes thefield very attractive to private capital the private efforts and those of our governmentignore the real possibility that widespread introductionof transgenic organisms will cause harm far greater thanany benefits it may bring.

8 Tradeoffs of costs and benefitsare not unique to biotechnology; new technologies al-ways carry risks. In this case the technology is far-reaching and powerful in its effects, which may well issue is too far-reaching and complex to allow theprospect of important gains to distract us from the needto understand the risks and potential costs, even if theyare difficult to express in accounting terms. At thisstage, the scientific knowledge is still rudimentary, thenet gains in agricultural productivity and the potentialprofits are both uncertain, and the health and environ-mental risks are little understood. Testing to determinethe long-term consequences for human health and envi-ronmental damage has been virtually is likely that most Americans are not aware of theextent of the planting of genetically modified crops inthe because it has happened with little fanfare,except in the cases where problems have made widely reported case is the accidental contamina-tion of flour used in tacos and other food products byStarlink corn, which had been approved only for animalfeed.

9 This resulted in a recall of the grain, flour, and foodproducts and in payments both to farmers who hadgrown the modified corn and to others whose fields werecontaminated, probably by pollen drift. The cost toable environmental and human health risks. I ve alsodone considerable reading of the extensive material onthe subject, particularly in relation to the potential forenvironmental opinions offered here also reflect my chemicalengineering education and my experience in manage-ment of pharmaceutical and chemical manufacturingoperations and engineering projects in the UnitedStates and internationally. I believe that the ideas pre-sented are reasonable and sound, but the reader mustmake that ROLE OF THE ENGINEERMost Engineers consider themselves problem solvers,and Genetic engineering can present serious problems;at best it raises important questions.

10 engineering itselfwill not directly provide the answers, but Engineers canbe influential in finding solutions. A great deal of infor-mation and opinion is available on both the technical andpublic-policy aspects of transgenic biotechnology. Ifengineers will inform themselves about the issue andbring their rigorous technical education, analyticalskills, and problem-solving drive to the policy debate,they can make valuable contributions to the decision-making participation by well-informed individuals inthe debate on issues such as this, with potentially im-mense consequences for our own well being and that offuture generations, is more than ever essential. I believethat such individual initiatives are indispensable if weare to maintain and strengthen our representative de-mocracy as a viable system for ourselves and a beaconand model of hope for the rest of the this article will encourage some readers toextend their knowledge and understanding of the issueand draw their own conclusions about the global intro-duction of this powerful and, as it seems to me, ex-tremely risky OF GENETICALLY MODIFIEDORGANISMS INTO THE ENVIRONMENTG lobal introduction of organisms and products emergingfrom transgenic biotechnology is being strongly pro-moted in the and internationally by the biotech andfeed industries.