Like "an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal"? (Reflections).

An ever-increasing number of people around the world are focusing their energies to address and express their worries and concerns that scientific advance may change the safety of the food we eat and pose risks to the environment in which we live. As scientists, public servants, politicians or private sector leaders, directly or indirectly engaged in the management and use of our natural resources, we have an inescapable duty to harness science not only to produce more and safe food, to eliminate hunger and poverty, but also to conserve the natural resource base we inherited from our forefathers. This broad challenge embraces science, ethics, food security and food safety. More specifically, the challenge taxes us to build, monitor and connect the strands of knowledge and understanding that buttress the nexus where science, ethics, food security and food safety meet.

Last year, we witnessed the President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister of Great Britain jointly announce the mapping of the human genome, with, may I add, a joint commitment that this information--a most fundamental public good--must remain in the public domain. As the year drew to a close, an international team of scientists published the first complete genetic map of a plant, the Thale cress (Arabidopsis thaliana)--a small weed related to the mustard plant (illustration at left). In the first three months of this year, very significant advances in our understanding of the human genome and the mapping of further plant and animal species (e.g., rice, the laboratory mouse) have been published in Nature, almost on a weekly basis. And global efforts to unravel the bovine genome continue apace.

Biotechnology includes a large range of different techniques, many of which are not controversial, as well as the now widely discussed technique known as genetic engineering. Central to genetic engineering is the ability to identify and manipulate genetic material with great precision and to transfer traits of interest from one organism or species and express them in another. Biotechnology also encompasses the development of cloned organisms, such as Dolly (the famous cloned sheep), and the modification of reproductive mechanisms in farm animals and fish. A further field of rapidly advancing application of biotechnology is represented by the food processing industry, where modem molecular techniques are currently being applied in a number of sectors, including fermentation and the production of starter and separation technologies. There have also been rapid and significant advances in the application of modem biotechnology to food and forest crops over the past decade.

Important advances have been made in each of the following areas of research: (i) in plant propagation techniques; (ii) in the diagnosis of pests and diseases; (iii) in the construction of transgenic plants with improved yields, disease, pest and stress resistance and/or nutritional quality; and (iv) in the use of genetic markers, maps, genomics and informatics in marker-assisted and gene-assisted selection.

From the mid-1990s, as a direct result of advances of genetic engineering, we have witnessed a substantial cultivation of the first generation of new genetically engineered, or transgenic, plant varieties. In the year 2000, more than 44 million hectares of land were planted with transgenic varieties of more than twenty plant species; the most commercially important were soybean, corn, rapeseed and cotton. These new varieties were planted in 13 countries, including Argentina, Australia, Canada, China, Mexico, South Africa and Uruguay, and most predominantly in the United States. However, it is worth noting that approximately 24 per cent were grown in developing countries. The value of the global market in transgenic crops has grown from $75 million in 1995 to $1.64 billion in 1998.

The specific characteristics for which these new transgenic varieties were bred include insect resistance, herbicide tolerance, delayed fruit ripening and virus resistance. Still further genetic modification (GM)-based improvements are currently under field-testing. Interestingly, a new emphasis is now being directed to improving the nutritional value of foods and food crops that may have direct and tangible benefits for the consumer--that is where the concern and GM debate are most strongly engaged.

While no commercial-scale production of genetically modified forest trees has yet been reported, research is under way, especially for timber-producing species grown in intensively managed plantations. Traits for which genetic modification can realistically be contemplated in the near future include insect and virus resistance, herbicide tolerance and modified lignen content.

The World Food Summit highlighted the importance of agricultural research, and biotechnology in particular, in the fight against hunger and malnutrition. First of all, let us remind ourselves that we can no longer depend on bringing significant new areas of virgin lands into the food production chain, and that further expansion of food production must come from increased yields on the lands already farmed by the poorest of small farmers and the larger farms alike. This raises the double challenges of raising productivity on the more fertile lands farmed by the better-off farmers together with an improvement in the output and range of food crops that can be grown on the less well-endowed fragile marginal lands.

In this latter context, the possible genetic modification of plant germplasm opens up new and exciting approaches to tackle many of the widely recognized constraints on tropical agriculture such as plant tolerance to drought, salinity and low soil fertility. Taken together, these potential advances, coupled with the effective use of information technologies, can underpin the development of sustainable food production on marginal lands based on integrated soil-water-nutrient-germplasm-pest management technologies; in other words, precision agriculture for the tropics. As to increasing yields of the major food staples, it is now widely recognized that we are at a post-green revolution standstill and that yield ceilings of the main food crops have already been reached in conventional breeding programmes. Certainly, we must look to genetic engineering to help move beyond these plateaus, and the current research with rice gives us a basis for well-founded expectations in this regard. Biotechnology and genetic engi neering also raise the possibility of enhancing tropical livestock production--a much needed development as we witness the accelerating pace of urbanization and the changes in dietary patterns.

Perhaps, the most significant genetic engineering breakthrough, which has direct relevance to malnutrition and food insecurity across the developing world, is the modification of the rice genome to produce a new variety called Golden Rice. Golden Rice is a transgenic rice variety that produces pro-vitamin A and has increased levels of iron. There is strong and justifiable interest to make this transgenic plant available to farmers in developing countries, especially to combat premature death and blindness arising from Vitamin A deficiency. It is estimated that 180 million people throughout the world are Vitamin A-deficient, and that each year two million of them die, hundreds of thousands of children go blind and a significant number of women suffer from anemia, which is a major cause of death in women of childbearing age.

Hopefully, we can look forward to more technological advances of this nature, not only to increase the nutritional quality of our food but also to effect improvements in food storage qualities and shelf life. Most of the major advances in biotechnology and genetic engineering have been realized by the large multinational Life Science companies independently or in collaboration with the Advanced Research Institutes in the industrial countries. Certainly, a number of developing countries (such as Brazil, Argentina, China, India, Malaysia and the Philippines) have significant research and development programmes in biotechnology. But the vast majority have not been able to devote adequate resources to support research in this field.

Developing countries also need assistance in research policy and management issues pertaining to biotechnology and genetic engineering research. The application of modern biotechnology calls for new investments, changes in resource allocations and new responsibilities for policy makers, research managers and scientists alike. In this context, the National Agricultural Research Systems must be supported more firmly by their Governments and the international donor community. The private sector, and the large multinational life sciences companies in particular, have a very important role to play in this regard, not only in openly sharing the results and products of their research but also in engaging in specific partnerships (research and training) with the national research systems in the fight against poverty and food insecurity.

The ownership and use of genetically modified germplasm is a fundamentally important question of equity that is being widely debated in fora concerned with intellectual property rights (IPR). One key issue is the extent to which "farmer's rights" and "breeders' exceptions" will be recognized under the newly emerging IPR schemes. The first gives farmers the right' to re-use seeds from protected patents whereas the second allows third parties to make use of patented varieties for breeding under certain restricted conditions. These two rights exist under some currently existing systems but are not clearly guaranteed under others, which are being adopted in response to the TRIPS (Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights) agreement concluded under the WTO.

Despite the fact that over the past few decades new biotechnologies have opened up exciting avenues and opportunities in a wide range of sectors, the scale of the negative global debate about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is unprecedented. This very intense and at times emotionally charged debate has polarized scientists, food producers, consumers and public interest groups, as well as Governments and policy makers.

Some ethical aspects of GMOs fall within the context of the right to adequate food, which is derived from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Other important human rights issues that have a bearing on the GMO debate are the "right to informed choice" and the right to "democratic participation". The right to informed choice derives from the ethical concept of the autonomy of individuals. This principle can be applied, for example, in the debate on labelling food derived from GMOs to ensure that consumers know what they are consuming and are able to make informed decisions. The right to democratic participation addresses the need for justice and equity. There are many, particularly the poor and powerless, with little education and no social entry point whose concerns and well-being must be reflected in the debate about the impact of GMOs on their lives and livelihoods, and benefits or risks for themselves and future generations who yet have no voice. The consumers' primary concern about GMOs is food safe ty. Quite logically, consumers seek assurances that GM foods reaching the market have been adequately tested and that these foods are being monitored to ensure continued safety.

Because of the complexity of food products, research on the safety of GM foods is more difficult than carrying out studies on components, such as pesticides, pharmaceuticals or industrial chemicals. Through the Codex Alimentarius Commission and other fora, countries are discussing standards for GMOs and ways to ensure their safety. The potential of GMOs to upset the balance of nature is another concern of the public. GMOs are "novel" products which, when released, may cause ecosystems to adjust, perhaps in unintended ways. There is also concern about the possibility that genetic "pollution" will result from out-crossing with wild populations.

Ideally, in forming their views about GMOs, consumers should weigh the perceived benefits of accepting a new technology against the perceived risks. Since only a few of the currently available plant or animal GMOs present obvious benefits to consumers, they question why they should assume possible risks, It is said that consumers take the risks while the producers (and/or the multinational supply companies) reap the benefits. Clearly, risk assessment and risk management methodologies are critical in this context. Science-based risk analysis seeks to enable experts to make decisions that minimize the probability of hazards in the food supply system and the environment. Consumers, however, may also wish for more transparency to protect their right to exercise informed consent on their own. Obviously, informed consent and labelling foods of GMO origin are the most important issues in this debate.

At present there are very few fora available to the public to discuss the wide range of issues relating to GMOs. The absence of such fora can lead to advocates concerned with one aspect of GMOs, such as environmental impact, pushing their concerns into a forum set up to deal with another aspect, such as labelling for example. A related issue is how to credibly bring the private sector transparently into public fora and, subsequently, how to hold public and private sector agencies accountable. Consumers' choices in the market cannot be ignored: they do not have to buy. The market is not the only place where consumers can express their views or preferences. Consumers have different lobby/protest groups seeking a more direct "say" in how their food is produced. This must be understood in the context that consumers throughout the world now live and work far from the locations where their food is produced. This lack of direct involvement in the production process can result in consumers' views on the agri-food sys tem and its products being ill-informed, misled and often largely ignored. The media have a very important and responsible role to play in this context.

Clearly, there is much concern and confusion about the risks of GMOs in terms of food safety and the environment. Regulatory agencies base their standards on science-based assessments of risk. Scientists, economists and policy makers are now using risk analysis methodologies to structure their evaluation of the effects of genetically modified organisms Risk analyses comprise three components: risk assessment, risk management and risk communication. Risk assessment and risk management are largely self-evident.

Risk communication deserves special mention, as it is the element least practised or highlighted in the GMO debate. It involves the interactive exchange of information and opinions among assessors, risk managers, consumers, industry, the scientific community and other interested parties throughout the risk analysis process. Regulatory issues, especially those relating to quarantine, invasive species and biosafety become very important when GM crops are traded internationally. International organizations supporting conventions, such as the International Plant Protection Convention, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, are actively engaged in constructing workable regulatory frameworks. More specific regulatory mechanisms include a code of conduct on biotechnology as it affects the conservation and use of genetic resources for food and agriculture. This is currently under development by FAO member countries within the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agricu lture. At the international level, particularly within FAO, there are mechanisms to establish standards for food products, plants, animal health and fisheries; in March 2000, FAO launched an Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture to assist developing countries in debating these issues.

Certainly, the use and implementation of traditionally improved organisms and technologies would be sufficient to permit developing countries to achieve the goals of the World Food Summit. But the evidence to date clearly shows that genetic engineering technologies and GMOs have the potential to raise levels of efficiency and productivity in plant and animal production significantly in a world where population will increase from the present level of six billion to nine billion and where the best agricultural land is diminishing through urbanization, industrialization and infrastructure for transport development, while deforestation and expansion of agriculture in marginal land constitute serious blows to fragile ecosystems. Potential benefits of biotechnology with the necessary safeguard measures for health and environment must be brought within the reach of everybody, including the poor and the most disadvantaged, ensuring food safety as an integral and critical part of this research and development process. Clearly, it is not possible to make sweeping generalizations about GMOs; each application must be fully analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

Through complete and transparent assessments of GMO applications, and recognition of their short- and long-term implications, the debate can be less contentious and more constructive. There is still relatively little information available to enable the layperson to make decisions. Widely communicated, accurate and objective assessments of the benefits and risks associated with the use of genetic technologies must be made available to all stakeholders. This, all the more, highlights the ethical responsibilities of the scientist to be more proactive and to communicate their findings in terms of what can be understood by everyone. Professional scientific associations have a greater role to play in this regard.

The right to adequate food carries with it Governments obligations to protect individuals' autonomy and their ability to participate in public decision-making fora, especially when issues relating to the most basic of all necessities--food--are being discussed. These obligations can include the provision of public resources to ensure that the fora are effective and are conducted in a spirit of fairness and justice.

Whereas GM technologies offer a great opportunity to develop a world that is truly food secure, we must not forget that we--the scientific community, the international community, the multinational life science companies and the donor community, together with national Governments--all bear a fundamental responsibility to ensure that the developing countries can equitably share in these exciting advances that science offers in a way that is safe for their population and environment. This calls for a more open, integrated and collaborative involvement of all the stakeholders engaged in developing country agriculture and food production.

Throughout history, man has continually sought advances in knowledge and enlightenment to meet his needs for food, shelter and safety. Overtime, each era brought its own set of Promethean changes and associated risks. Following the industrial revolution, the science of change became more profound, more excitingly challenging and more potentially dangerous as technologies became increasingly potent and risky; in turn, each new perceived, risk-prone development invoked calls for the control of science and scientific paradigms in terms of assured safety in the management of scientific advance.

Paradigm shifts are interesting moments in science, because they force us to rethink the rationale of our actions as scientists. They are particularly interesting when we can perceive the outcomes, not of mutually exclusive approaches but of possibilities for acceptable broad-based developments for the common good. Today, the science of food and agriculture has reached another milestone in its history that heralds significant and exciting possibilities to build a new Green Revolution--a much needed set of changes to which hundreds of millions of food insecure people bear witness today, and on which sustainable development can and will build for this and for future generations to come.

To the scientist, to the development community and to all of us, this tremendous challenge requires a more comprehensive, transparent and inclusive research paradigm involving the sharing of decision-making and research outputs in ways not done before. The effective, transparent and equitable use of increasingly accessible Information technologies can help build the much needed inclusive framework of scientific investigation for the food needs of today's poor and tomorrow's world.

But as scientists, we should always keep in mind the warning of Einstein: "Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal."

Therein lies the challenge.

RELATED ARTICLE: Arabidopsis thaliana (facing page) is a small flowering plant that is widely used as a model organism in plant biology. Arabidopsis is a member of the mustard (Brassicaceae) family, which includes cultivated species, such as cabbage and radish. it is not of major agronomic significance, but it offers important advantages for basic research in genetics and molecular biology. "Arabidopsis thaliana was discovered by Johannes Thal (hence, thaliana) in the Harz mountains in the sixteenth century, though he called it Pilosella siliquosa (and it has gone through a number of name changes since). The earliest report of a mutant is believed to have been in 1873 by A. Braun. F. Laibach first summarized the potential of Arabidopsis thaliana as a model organism for genetics in 1943. He did some work on it much earlier though, publishing its correct chromosome number in 1907. The first collection of Induced mutants was made by Laibach's student, E. Reinholz. Her thesis was submitted in 1945, the work publi shed in 1947. Langridge played an important role in establishing the properties and utility of the organism for laboratory studies in the 1950s, as did Redei and others (such as J. H. van der Veen in the Netherlands, J. Veleminsky in Czechosiovakia and G. Robbelen in Germany) in the 1960s. One of Redei's many important contributions was to write scholarly reviews on Arabidopsis. --from Elliot Meyerowitz, 1998

The Arabidopsis Information Resource (TAIR) on www.arabidopsis.org. The Arabidopsis Genome Initiative is an International collaboration to sequence the genome of the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana. Begun in 1996 with the goal of completing the genome sequence by 2004, sequencing was completed at the end of 2000.

Based on FAO Director-General Jacques Dlouf's address to the Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry International Conference, In Stockholm, Sweden in May 2001.

Illustrations of Aesculus Hippocastanum and Pinus Laricio; 18th century prints from the collection of David Lubin in the Lubin Memorial Library at FAO.