Science Good, Nature Bad: The Biotech Dogma

Caesar had his soothsayer, King Tut had his high priest, and Napoleon had the Pope. But now we are enlightened. Now we have Science.

In this modern era, the role of trusted advisor has fallen to scientists. Science has finally triumphed over Nature through meticulous research, objectivity and ethics. If something has been "scientifically proven," it is gospel -- irrefutable in a court of law -- and if it can't be proven then it is little more than witchcraft and rumor.

We feel safe in the hands of experts, but our faith in Science can actually obfuscate the facts necessary to make informed policy decisions. Nowhere is this more readily apparent than in the current debate over biotechnology.

This week in San Diego, Science is facing off against Nature across a formidable barricade of concrete, barbed wire, and police in riot gear. Representing Science is the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), host of BIO 2001 -- a convention of the biotech industry's best and brightest. In the ring for Nature is the multi-organizational crew of Biodevastation 2001, a gathering of biotechnology opponents showcasing heavy-hitters like international activist Vandana Shiva and populist writer Jim Hightower.

This event is only the most recent in a long series of confrontations between those who purport that biotechnology and genomics are humanity's path to salvation, and those who believe that these new technologies are dangerous, unnecessary and will actually serve to increase human misery and environmental destruction. It is a very complicated debate, one mired in economic justice, food safety, ecology and genetics, issues of which politicians, the media, the general public and even some of the debaters themselves may have a fleeting grasp at best. Therefore, the whole stew has been boiled down to a simple standoff between logical, provable Science and the emotional, spiritual Nature.

Hugh Gusterson, an anthropologist at MIT who studies scientists, looks at the way the scientific community is polarized by biotech's Science vs. Nature divide. The pro-biotech movement accuses opponents of being against Science, while anti-biotech activists charge the industry of violating the laws of Nature, or playing God. The implications belie the truth: that both sides have their share of scientists as well as environmentalists and humanitarians. Respected scientists have spoken out about the dangers of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) while some environmentalists have lauded the new crops as a way to reduce pesticide use and malnutrition among the poor.

Gusterson says that, ultimately, the concepts of Science and Nature are destroyed and the real issues -- genetically modified plants and animals, cloning, stem cell research -- are lost in a sea of rhetoric. Our inability to move beyond this false dichotomy ensures that we will remain incapable of making informed and intelligent decisions regarding the proper dispatch of these new technologies.

This puts the biotechnology choir at a distinct advantage. The biotech business, with its $25 million public relations budget, has claimed sole dominion over Science. In fighting a modern day Crusade, that's equivalent to having God on your side. After all, since Science is the new Gospel, those who oppose it are members of the anachronistic, backwards Nature cult -- Luddites and Gaia-worshippers.

Carl B. Feldenbaum, BIO president, exalted in the industry's scientific achievements, comparing the work of geneticists to the Koran, the Torah or the Gospels. He repeatedly implied that protestors are a handful of religious zealots -- "Jehovah's Witnesses" and "devout Bhuddists" -- who protest out of a "fear of the unknown" and a "primal" relationship with their food and their bodies.