Are We Morally Fit to

Tinker with the

Secrets of Life?
The Problem of Genetic Engineering
and the University of Vermont
UVM's proposed $16 million Stafford Center
will allow the University to greatly expand its
genetic engineering research. Despite con-
cerns over health, environmental and social
threats of genetic engineering raised by
Greens and other citizens, both UVM and the
City of Burlington have failed to meaningfully
respond.
What are the risks of releasing genetically
engineered organisms into the environment?
Many. Genetically engineered organisms could become the
pollution of the future-biogenetic pollution. Because the organ-
isms are alive and can reproduce, migrate, and mutate, this would
be a growing, moving, changing form of pollution. Genetically
engineered organisms could even change physical (actors on
the planet, such as weather patterns. And they could drastically
change the balance of species as new organisms outcompete or
destroy the natural species.
Although not a product of genetic engineering, the Eurasian
milfoil that clogs many Vermont lakes and ponds is an example of
an organism released into the environment with harmful results.
Brought from Europe in the last century, Eurasian milfoil grows
uncontrollably because the organisms that feed on it and keep its
growth in check in Europe are largely absent in Vermont. New
organisms produced using genetic engineering threaten to dis-
rupt ecosystems on a much greater scale.
But can't scientists predict these risks and
avoid them?'
Not with any accuracy. Ecology is a very young science which
attempts to understand the complex relationships between living
and non-living factors in the environment. It is simply not possible
to confidently predict the effects that genetically engineered or-
ganisms will have on the ecosystem.
But nothing's gone wrong so far, right?
Who knows? It took 40-50 years before society realized the
environmental and health consequences of the chemical revolu-
tion: pollution, toxic waste dumps, and cancer. The very same
companies are now developing this new technology and assur-
ing us that it is perfectly safe. Why should we believe them?
Aren't there regulations to protect us and the
environment?
Regulation is woefully inadequate to protect public safety and
the environment. Federal regulations are based on outdated
chemical pollution models and favor the interests of the biotech
industry. Enforceability of even existing regulations is highly
suspect. And much privately funded research is exempted from
many federal safety guidelines.
Stop the Stafford!
The $16 million Stafford Center, about one-half funded by the
United States Department of Agriculture, will be at the center of
UVM's expanded biotechnology research and product develop-
ment programs. As yet, neither the University nor the City of
Burlington has acknowledged the serious threat posed by ge-
netic engineering.
Critics of the Stafford Center are challenging the absence of
public control over UVM and the University's increasing market-
orientation. Opponents have also challenged the right of the
Mayor and Board of Alders to cut deals with the University com-
mitting the City's support to a genetic engineering research
facility.
However, the fundamental question is whether our society is
morally equipped to handle genetic engineering In humanistic
and ecological ways. If we had a different type of society, an
ecological society based on cooperation and working with na-
ture, instead of one based on power, profit, and the domination
of nature, then perhaps genetic engineering could be used in
beneficial ways. But the economic, political, and ideological
forces controlling the development of this incredibly powerful
technology promise destructive, even nightmarish conse-
quences for people and nature that will far overshadow any
benefits.
The commercial development of Bovine Growth Hormone at
UVM is just one example of the misuse of genetic engineering
and is merely the tip of the iceberg. If we are to have any signifi-
cant control over UVM's guarded research agenda, then the
Stafford Center must be stopped.
If you would like to receive the Greens' position paper on ge-
netic engineering or join the effort to stop the Stafford Center,
contact the Burlington Greens, PO Box 4567, Burlington, VT
05406. Or call Danny Fisher at 864-4071.
Partially adapted from literature produced by the Green Alternative
European Link of the European Parliament.
Produced by the Burlington Greens
PO Box 4567
Burlington, VT 05406
What is genetic engineering?
Genetic engineering creates new forms of life. They are cre-
ated by using techniques which were discovered by biologists in
the last twenty years. These techniques are referred to as
"genetic engineering," because they are based on applying
engineering principles to change the genetic make-up of living
organisms. Using these new tools, technicians can alter the basic
blueprint of life, which is found in the genes contained in the
DNA of every cell. The most important type of genetic engi-
neering is called "recombinant-DNA technology" or "gene splic-
ing." This involves using an enzyme to open the DNA, inserting
a foreign gene at that point, and closing it back up again.
Why is such a thing being done?
Partly just for the sake of finding out more about life and hered-
ity. But increasingly the genetic manipulation of life is becoming
the ultimate means tor remaking nature to serve human ends-to
work for us in different ways, faster, more efficiently, profitably,
and predictably-like a machine. The tasks envisioned for the new
organisms are in medicine, agriculture, resource recovery, waste
management and pollutions control, to name a few.
What kinds of organisms are being genetically
manipulated?
All kinds. Genetic manipulation is being carried out on basically
everything alive, from one-celled organisms to the most complex
mammals and plants. The famous "ice-minus" bacteria were ge-
netically engineered to prevent frost damage to plants. Super-
poisonous viruses are being developed for use as pesticides.
Higher animals and plants are being cloned. Human genes have
been inserted into sheep so that they produce pharmaceuticals
in their milk. The possibilities for novel life forms are literally limit-
less: even animal-human hybrids functioning as part of a "slave
class" cannot be dismissed.
But haven't humans been manipulating nature
for thousands of years?
Of course. But breeding plants and animals, and even brewing
beer, were based on whole organisms. In addition, traditional
breeding was limited to crossing plants and animals which were
very closely related each other. Today it is possible to combine
genetic material from a mouse and a person-this cellular and
molecular level manipulation is a much different biotechnology.
HOHAZJUS
Who is producing genetically engineered
organisms?
Genetically engineered organisms are being produced by
technicians working in the laboratories of universities, public re-
search centers, transnational corporations, and small busi-
nesses. The giants of the chemical and pharmaceutical industries
are becoming increasingly dominant-well-known multinationals
like Monsanto, DuPont, Shell, and Eli Lilly.
Why can't we just leave these genetically
engineered organisms in the labs?
Because they are intended to be used. Industry and scientists
are impatient to bring their discoveries to the market and for this
they have to be able to survive in the open-otherwise, they
could not fulfill their purpose as crops, biological insecticides, or
toxic waste disposal agents. Most experiments now are small-
scale. Soon these living products may be sold and released into
the environment on a mass scale.
This step "toward" can never be tumedback
P A T # * ~ ~ " y ^ t * ' M h k
DANGER
gawtkaiyeng'mBetsdnaUm-delibentanlegsaarhumaiKpmhMed
environment ofgenetically
engineered
nan...organisms'
Can't genetically engineered organisms clean
up the environment?
It is claimed that they can. But the cost may be the vicious circle
of the "technological fix," where a new technology is brought in
to solve the problems caused by the previous technology, and
ends up creating an even bigger problem. Will the oil-eating mi-
crobes still be hungry after they've finished consuming the spills?
The technological fix never really solves the problems, because it
avoids confronting them at their source. Wouldn't it be better to
stop polluting the environment in the first place, rather than using
genetic engineering to adapt the environment to withstand the
pollution?
What types of genetic engineering will be
conducted at UVM?
Who knows? The University steadfastly protects its absolute
right to make life-shaping decisions about biotechnology without
any "interierence" from us, the public. UVM has left the door
open for just about any type of genetic engineering research. It
will accept Department of Defense research grants. We know that
the University is currently working for Monsanto on the commer-
cial development of Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH) and plans to
do more similar research in the future. There is no reason why we
shouldn't expect the worst.
Is Bovine Growth Hormone genetic
engineering?
Yes. The Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH) being injected into
cows at the University of Vermont is mass produced in vats using
genetically altered bacteria. BGH is one example of a commercial
application genetic engineering that will have devastating social
consequences. In this instance, small farms will be eliminated and
corporate farms and chemical mar''acturers like Monsanto will
benefit. BGH may also pose health . ireats to cows and people
drinking the milk.
Could genetically engineered organisms
reduce our dependency on chemical
pesticides?
Not necessarily. In fact, most of the plant varieties that have
been tested outdoors are "herbicide resistant," developed to be
sold along with chemical weedkillers. Agrochemical companies
estimate that such package deals will significantly boost herbicide
sales.