Where is the peace in Greenpeace?
Greenpeace’s attack on CSIRO’s experimental crop of genetically-modified wheat is not only an attack on CSIRO, but an attack on science, reason and democracy.
This morning I awoke to news that Greenpeace activists had destroyed a Canberra GM wheat field trial site belonging to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). This is a despicable act that should be condemned by anyone who values science, the rule of law and democracy.
An unidentified Greenpeace vandal destroys an experimental GM wheat crop belonging to CSIRO, an Australian government agency.
As regular readers of the Grapevine would be aware, I work as a research scientist on the development of genetically-modified pasture grasses for the Australian dairy industry. I am proud of the work that I do and I believe that GM has much to offer Australian agriculture in terms of better nutritive value, increased productivity and reduced environmental impacts.
Having worked in Australian science for a number of years, I can assure you that no-one enters the scientific profession for the money. Rather it is a love of the scientific method, combined with a belief that one is contributing to a larger project and body of work that will ultimately bring benefits for all humankind. In my case, the decision to become a research scientist was also influenced by a passion for molecular biology and a love of and fascination with plants that goes back to my childhood.
Science is a vocation. In the public sector (which employs the greatest number of plant research scientists in Australia) many work long hours for relatively low pay. We do this because we believe in what we’re doing and because we love what we do. We invest more than our time in our work: we invest our soul.
Scientific research is very expensive. One project can cost millions of dollars, easily. Inserting genes into wheat (be it via Agrobaterium-mediation or microprojectile bombardment) is a tricky process at the best of times, as is typical for many monocotyledonous species. To get an experiment to an advanced stage where thousands of seedlings are subjected to field evaluation would have cost CSIRO staff many years of hard work and the taxpayer a lot of money.
Many people don’t realise what happens before GM plants are put into the field for evaluation. In extremely brief terms, suitable plant material needs to be produced before it is subjected to some form of transformation. Only a small number of plants will actually incorporate the transgene, so each seedling must have its DNA checked to see whether the new gene is present as well as being tested for other properties. Finally the plants are transferred to a glasshouse for bulking-up before the field trial commences. It doesn’t stop there, as the plants have to be measured for phenotypic traits (appearance) as well as the trait-of-interest during the trial. After all, there’s no value inserting a gene if it doesn’t work!
When all of that is completed, a classical breeding programme ensues followed by a massive regulatory process. From start to finish, this typically takes more than a decade and involves the contributions of dozens of senior scientists, research scientists, technical officers and PhD or Honours students.
And then in one fell swoop, cowardly Greenpeace vandals enter in the early morning and cut it all down. Just like that.
I don’t work for CSIRO, but I know exactly how the scientists and students whose work this is would feel. Devastated.
And for what?
How does destroying the work of a PhD student, or the achievements of a research scientist convince the Commonwealth Government that GM is “wrong” as Greenpeace ignorantly proclaims? How does wanton vandalism convince the broader Australian community that Greenpeace is a respectable organisation that has legitimate concerns about a scientific project or a new technology?
It doesn’t.
What it shows is that Greenpeace – contrary to their name – aren’t too peaceful at all.
Just because I don’t like something doesn’t give me the right to destroy it.
When I wrote my blog article about GM canola in 2007, I was subjected to all sorts of abuse, pseudoscience, myth and even a death threat. The noisiest opponents of GM are the very people who provide the greatest threat to free speech and democracy by using violence to try to get at those of us who have an opposing view.
Personally speaking, I recognise that GM is not a cure-all. I understand that world hunger is more of an economic and political problem than an agricultural problem and GM alone won’t fix it. I understand that some applications of GM can be risky or even unethical. But that is why we have government-funded scientific trials which evaluate the risks and if necessary, cancel the work. We evaluate, risk-assess, then assist government regulators make a calm, reasoned and intelligent decision about whether a product should be released or not.
Contrary to the propaganda of Greenpeace activists, scientific thought isn’t bought and sold. There isn’t a secret global conspiracy. We’re not all working for, or brainwashed by, Monsanto or any other demonised multinational company. In Australia’s case, most plant scientists work directly for government and earn public sector wages which are directly paid for with grants and recurrent funding.
I don’t believe that genetic modification technology poses any risk to the community whatsoever. But like all technologies, it has to be used appropriately. As Alfred Nobel eventually discovered with dynamite, his invention could be used for good or it could be used for evil. But dynamite itself wasn’t the problem. The same applies with the genetic modification of plants.
My final thought relates to the “dangerous” nature of the technology that Greenpeace condemns.
As we are required to do under the Gene Technology Act 2000 and associated regulations, we scientists take great care in containing and transporting our transgenic plants. They must be transported within double-sealed containers, documented records of movement must be kept and any rubbish destroyed by autoclaving. When the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator permits a trial, it comes with strict conditions to ensure no unintended contamination or spread.
Therefore, it probably goes without saying that violently shredding transgenic wheat plants in an open field with little regard for containment is a very odd approach to take. It would be akin to anti-nuclear protesters breaking into a reactor and spreading uranium everywhere. The logic is flawed.
I hope this episode goes to demonstrate to the broader community the true nature of Greenpeace as an organisation that rejects science and reason. This is a truth that Dr. Patrick Moore, the founder of Greenpeace realised when he eventually left the organisation in 1986.
Science is not infallible and has its faults, but it’s the best mechanism we have to improve our lives and evaluate the risks and benefits of technologies. Without science, we’d be thrown back into the dark ages.
_____________
These views are my own, and do not represent the views of my employer.
Comments
One response to “Where is the peace in Greenpeace?”
Adam,
Thanks for standing up against Greenpeace. Most businesses and governments are so afraid of this Amsterdam-based multinational protest that they dare not say a peep.