A FEW WEEKS ago, at the height of Britain鈥檚 outbreak of foot and mouth
disease, a pet calf called Phoenix was sentenced to death to help slow the march
of the disease. How the nation鈥檚 tabloids wept. Sometime after next month鈥檚
general election there will be a big inquiry into this epidemic. Perhaps it will
conclude that it鈥檚 time to overcome our squeamishness about genetic engineering
and create genetically modified Phoenixes with inbuilt resistance to such
diseases.
That is certainly the view of Britain鈥檚 top scientific club, the Royal
Society. Its new report on the pros and cons of genetically modifying animals
picks out disease prevention as an especially worthwhile goal. Imagine the
benefits, it says, of creating cows resistant to BSE and chickens impregnable to
salmonella. Imagine what it would mean to African herdsmen if their cattle were
given GM resistance to the trypanosomiasis parasite spread by the dreaded tsetse
fly.
The report makes lots of eminently sensible points. If GM fish are to be
grown for food, it says, they should be farmed in landlocked waters and be made
sterile to prevent them breeding with their unmodifed wild cousins. Labs should
be alert to the possibility of GM animals escaping. And any food produced from
GM animals should be rigorously tested.
Advertisement
Yet the report鈥檚 enthusiasm for some of the anticipated benefits of genetic
engineering is misplaced. Despite its calls for more public funds for GM
research, the real movers and shakers in this revolution will always be the big
companies. Their interest will be in creating fast-growing, superlean pigs and
cows for rich farmers, not animals that resist parasites in the developing
world.
More fundamentally, why are animal diseases such a problem in countries like
Britain anyway? The answer lies less in the DNA of our cows and pigs and more in
our subsidised system of intensive farming and long-distance trading in animals
which encourages infections. There is a danger that genetic modification will be
used to shore up this system by making farm animals better equipped to survive
cramped conditions. Indirectly, it could even help to spread disease
susceptibility by encouraging farmers to switch from genetically diverse breeds
to high-yield GM animals drawn from a narrow gene pool. Nor will these creatures
make farming less stressful. Judging from GM crops in North America, unleashing
patented animals into the barnyard will not just strengthen the grip of big
business on food production. It will be a recipe for legal disputes over gene
ownership and breeding rights.
The Royal Society points out that, contrary to the popular myth, scientists
aren鈥檛 creating genetic monsters simply to satisfy their own curiosity. True.
But the real threat from GM technology has never been one of giant chickens and
pigs stalking the landscape. It is bound up with a raft of more prosaic economic
and social issues.
Are GM farm animals are a good or bad thing? First ask what kind of farming
you really want. And who will control and own the animals.
