The regulation of certain scientific and technological applications sometimes relies on building scenarios that range from ‘worst case’ to ‘best case’. Scenarios like this make it easier to make comparisons and balance costs and benefits of different kinds of regulation.
At one point in the late 1990s and early 2000s the scenarios around genetically modified organisms (GMOs) seemed to range from apocalypse to utopia; from novels like Crichton’s Next to scientists’ convictions that GMOs would provide cures to intractable health conditions. While the controversy has died down, two events this week remind us that there continue to be risks of cross-over from genetically modified organisms to non-modified organisms. At Narita airport in Tokyo, a genetically modified mouse nearly escaped. In Europe, imports from the US have been restricted after traces of non-approved genetically modified food samples were found in rice.
Apart from the financial loss, what would be the consequences of genetically modified mice escaping from a Berkeley lab? Huge investments have been made in the US, Europe and Japan to keep GMOs ‘under control’, to detect and trace them, and to label products containing them. In addition, research is being conducted on whether or not and how GMOs mix with non-modified organisms. I wonder if all these funds have been put to their best possible use; would some of these funds have been better spent on building more responsible and informed scenarios, away from the apocalypse and utopia models?
Comments
I think that neither of these events is really the negative outcome people fear -- rather they are failures or near-failures of the containment system. Containment is a line of defense even before risk of harm. As with many things, I think the fear comes with the fact that it is extremely difficult to notice the negative outcomes, and that makes it more difficult to evaluate whether or not something is safe. These questions combine several features that are interesting in economics - risk, lack of knowledge, and external effects. I think many people see either benefits or costs, but not both.
The GMO debate surfaced earlier this week on campus by a couple of professors who are critical of the new BP-Berkeley project. (See article).
It is true that containment is not at issue in the biomass conversion process. However, BP's supposed goal to create GMOs to create new fuel sources has caused a mini-firestorm.
I admittedly know very little about the conversion of biomass into energy. Do you know what the dangers are that have caused one passionate student to call the BP partnership "our new Manhattan Project?"