Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Social genomics: Genomic inventions in society

The nature of what’s to come

  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper identifies several kinds of intellectual mistakes that proponents of genetic engineering make, in defending their views and characterizing the views of their opponents. Results from research in the social sciences and humanities illuminate the nature of these mistakes. The mistakes themselves play a role in allowing proponents to gather support from other protagonists in the social controversies involving science and technology. Understanding the controversies requires understanding that innovations are components of complex and ill-structured social problems; the “right answer” does not follow from scientific or technological breakthroughs. If the problems are identified correctly, issues of non-economic or non-market values and political and individual rights will need to be addressed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. For information about Kling’s use of this term, see http://www.slis.indiana.edu/CSI/index.html. CSI stands for the Center for Social Informatics.

  2. Fernandes, R. and Simons, H.A. (1999) A study of how individuals solve complex and ill-structured problems, Policy Sciences, 32: 225–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Tuler, S. and Webler, T. (Winter 1999) Designing an analytic deliberative process for environmental health policy making in the U.S. nuclear weapons complex, Risk, Health Safety and Environment 10: 65–87.

    Google Scholar 

  4. In a draft book chapter (personal correspondence), E. J. Conklin provides other criteria for what he calls “wicked problems” in organizations (e.g., no stopping rule, no set of discrete solutions, understanding the problem involves developing a solution). Abstracts of working papers on this research are available at http://www.gdss.com/wp.

  5. National Research Council (1996) Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society.

  6. Andrews, L. (March 28, 1999) The sperminator. The New York Times Magazine, pp. 62–65.

  7. Service, R.F. (Oct. 30, 1998) Seed-sterilizing ‘terminator technology’ sows discord, Science 282: 850–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Weiss, Rick (Feb. 3, 1999) Seeds of discord. Washington Post, p. A01.

  9. Macilwain, C. (1999) Developing countries look for guidance in GM crops debate… Nature 401: p. 831–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kaiser, J. (2000) USDA to commercialize ‘terminator’ technology. Science 289: 709–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. The original study appeared in Nature 399:214, 1999. The 11/26/99 issue of Science 286 reports response from scientists, environmental and industry representatives: Ferber, D. (1999) GM crops in the cross hairs, Science 286: 1662–1666; and Enserink, M. (1999) Ag biotech moves to mollify its critics, Science 286: 1666–1668. The controversy surrounding the study and its implications continues; see Pollack, A. (2001) New research fuels the debate over genetic food altering. NY Times National Edition, 9/9/01, p. NE 27.

  12. Layman, P. (1999) De facto ban on genetically modified foods in Europe. CEN (7/5/99), p. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hileman, B. (2001) Europe leaves biotech door ajar. CEN 79 (21/19/01), p. 16.

    Google Scholar 

  14. For an example of a different approach, see A. Cho, (2002) Random samples: Transgenic moths on the make. Science 295: 619. Cho reports on the first US field test of a genetically modified moth “to control pink bollworms, which have decimated cotton crops for decades.”

    Google Scholar 

  15. Mervis, J., A. Lawler, P. Bagla, M. Enserink. (2000) Further food fights. Science 287: 2131.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Barboza, D. (2001) As biotech crops multiply, consumers get little choice. NYTimes, 6/10/01, pp. A1, 28.

  17. Pollan, M. (2001) Genetic pollution. NYTimes Magazine, 12/9/01, pp. 74, 76.

  18. Service, R. F. (2001) Arson strikes research labs and tree farm in Pacific Northwest. Science 292: 1622–1623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kaiser, J. (2001) Words (and axes) fly over transgenic trees. Science 292: 34–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. C. Holden, (2002) Random samples: Smashed potatoes, Science 295, p. 795.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Thompson, P.B. (1999) Food Biotechnology in Ethical Perspective. Blackie Academic & Professional, Chapman & Hall, UK, especially Chapter 4.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Goldman, K. (2000) Bioengineered food — safety and labeling. Science 290: 457–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. See http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/biolabgu.html for the draft FDA guidelines on voluntary labeling.

  24. Miller, H. (1999) A rational approach to labeling biotech-derived foods. Science 284: 1471–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Detwiler, M. (2001) ESA urges more peer reviewed research on environmental effects of GMOs. Professional Ethics Report XIV:3, Summer 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Wolfenbarger, L.L. & Phifer, P.R. (2000) The Ecological risks and benefits of genetically engineered plants. Science 290: 2088–2092.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hileman, B. (2001) Ag biotech breeds more controversy. CEN, p. 34, 3/5/01.

  28. Pollan, M. (2001) Genetic pollution. NYTimes Magazine, 12/9/01, pp. 74, 76.

  29. There is continuing controversy about the accuracy of these reports; see http://www.biotechinfo.net/mexican_crop_conflicts.html.

  30. Kasperson, R. and Kasperson, J. (1991) Hidden hazards, in: Mayo, D. and Hollander, R. (eds.) Acceptable Evidence, Oxford U. Press, pp. 9–28.

  31. Slovic, P. (1991) Beyond numbers, in: Mayo, D. and Hollander, R. (eds.) Acceptable Evidence, Oxford U. Press, pp. 48–65.

  32. Thompson, P. B. (1999) The ethics of truth-telling and the problem of risk. Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (4): 489–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. See Center for Information Society Studies, NCSU, 2001 Citizens’ Technology Forum on Genetically Modified Foods, Dec. 2001.

  34. Gaskell, G., Bauer, M.W., Durant, J., Allum, N.C. (1999) Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the U.S. Science 285: 384–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hileman, B. (2001) Ag biotech breeds more controversy. CEN, p. 34, 3/5/01.

  36. Thayer, A.M. (2000) Agbiotech. CEN pp. 21–29, 10/2/2000.

  37. Koenig, R. (2000) E.U. grabs food safety by the horns. Science 287: 403–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Haslberger, A. G. (2000) Monitoring and labeling for genetically modified products. Science 287: 431–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Lassen, J. (1999) Changing modes of biotechnology assessment in Denmark,” in Biotechnology and Public Understanding of Science, R. Miettinen (ed.), Publication of the Academy of Finland, Helsinki, p. 89.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Lassen, J. (1999) Changing modes of biotechnology assessment in Denmark,” in Biotechnology and Public Understanding of Science, R. Miettinen (ed.), Publication of the Academy of Finland, Helsinki, p. 87.

    Google Scholar 

  41. An example is the controversy surrounding recent shipment of food including genetically modified corn to several African nations threatened with famine. See Murphy, J. (2002) In Africa, suspicion of genetically altered corn, The Baltimore Sun, pp. 1A, 8A, August 6, 2002.

  42. Moffat, A.S. (2001) Finding new ways to fight plant diseases. Science 292: 2270–2273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Malakoff, D. (1999) New genes boost rice nutrients. Science 285: 994–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Whether this genetic change can have the desired effect in malnourished populations is questionable; see Finneran, K. (2001) What’s food got to do with it? Issues in Science and Technology, Summer 2001, pp. 24–25.

  45. Frank, L. (2000) Consumer power heralds hard times for researchers. Science 287: 790–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Huang, J, et al (2002) Plant biotechnology in China. Science 295: 674–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Lacey, H. (2001) Incommensurability and “multicultural science”, in: Hoyningen-Huene, P. and Sankey, H. (eds.) Incommensurability and Related Matters, pp. 225–239.

  48. Aiken, W. H. (1986) On evaluating agricultural research. In: Dahlberg, K. (ed.) New Directions for Agriculture and Agricultural Research, Rowman and Allenheld.

  49. Hileman, B. (2001) Polarization over biotech food. CEN 79: 21, p. 59. Note the reference to golden rice with Vitamin A; actually it seems that such rice contains beta-carotene which converts to A only in otherwise well-nourished people. See K. Finneran, reference 44.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Societal Dimensions of Engineering, Science, and Technology, National Science Foundation, Room 995, 22230, Arlington, VA, USA

    Rachelle D. Hollander Ph.D. (Program Director)

Authors
  1. Rachelle D. Hollander Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rachelle D. Hollander Ph.D..

Additional information

ADM uses this phrase in its advertisement on the Jim Lehrer News Hour on PBS, while a gas pump uncurls from a cornstalk. This paper represents only my opinions and not those of the National Science Foundation where I am employed. I want to thank Sharon Kingsland for her comments about the paper at a seminar at Johns Hopkins University in fall 2001, Larry Busch for his very useful comments on the manuscript, and audience members and my fellow panelists, Hugh Lacey and Paul Thompson, at the meeting of the Association for Practical and Professional Ethics, March 1, 2002, where I also presented the paper.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hollander, R.D. Social genomics: Genomic inventions in society. SCI ENG ETHICS 8, 485–496 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-002-0002-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-002-0002-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation