EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
2155

That we should embrace genetic modification technology

(PRO)
0 points
(CON)
WINNER!
0 points
KohaiKohai (PRO)
I would like to thank admin for accepting my debate. As a biology major, this is a topic that I'm very familiar with. I look forward to an excellent change and wish my opponent the best of luck.  
Note that part of my arguments is from an essay that I during my first semester in college. I will be expanding on it and provide visual aid. I will also explain things a little bit better than I may have in  the essay.

I. Introduction: What is Genetic Modification?

Since the beginning of agriculture, humans have exploited and altered the genetic information in plants and animals to create new biological variations through artificial selection and crossbreeding. The main difference between genetic engineering and traditional breeding methods is that genetic engineering allows for us to isolate, copy, turn on, and introduce genes into other organisms. (Jones) This is done by identifying the gene of interests, isolating that trait, inserting that trait into the desired organism, and then propagating that organism. (Powell) However, the concept of a “genetically modified organism,” also known as a GMO, has been difficult to properly define by regulatory law because it is an imprecise category used to classify products that have had their genetic content engineered to cancel undesirable traits or express desired or added traits. (Tagliabue) Here is a helpful visual to demonstrate the genetic modification process (Powell):






There are different types of genetic modification and at least three different ways in which GMOs are produced: 1) Transgenic – plants that have genes from another species; 2) Cisgenic – plants that are made by using genes from the same species or a closely related species; and 3) Subgenic – a crop whose entire genome has been edited. In recent years, several regulatory bodies and states have attempted to require labeling of foods containing ingredients that have been modified. Because there are different techniques used for genetic modification, different crops are modified for different reasons. The papaya, for example, was modified to help resist the Papaya Ringworm Virus which nearly drove the Hawaiian Papaya to extinction 

Today, there are only eight crops on the market today that have been genetically modified. Those are soybeans, cotton, canola, alfalfa, sugar beets, papaya, and squash. Although most of the food in the market is not itself GM, about 70 to 80% of food likely contains processed ingredients from GM plants (Hart). Recently, however, GM salmon and a GM apple (called the "Arctic apple") was approved by regulators in the U.S. and Canada though they are not currently on the market. 


II. Genetic Modification and Our Health


Although the primary aspect of genetic modification is for crops, the same technology that is used for crops can also be used for pharmaceutical purposes. Take, for instance, insulin. Prior to GM technology, insulin was made with insulin from ground up pork and beef pancreases. In the late 1970s, scientists were able to use genetic engineering to piece the gene for human insulin with E. Coli or yeast cells. The results were that the new insulin was far more effective and there were less reactions to it (Knight). 

In 2016, scientists were able to use the CRISPR gene editing tool to edit out HIV from a genome. Although HIV was able to overcome the attack, there is the promise of using gene editing therapy to help patients with HIV (Callaway). Gene editing therapy is currently used to help patients who suffer from Leukemia.  

One more potential impact is the Golden Rice Project. In many third world countries, there is a strong vitamin A deficiency that causes blindness. By genetically modifying rice to contain beta-carotene, the source of vitamin A. This will be a significant help to those who are malnourished. 


III. Are GMOs safe?


One of the contentions used by opponents of GM technology and GM crops is a question over its safety. There has been extensive testing on GM crops and the scientific consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of GMOs. The AAAS wrote:


“There are several current efforts to require labeling of foods containing products derived from genetically modified crop plants, commonly known as GM crops or GMOs. These efforts are not driven by evidence that GM foods are actually dangerous. Indeed, the science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe. Rather, these initiatives are driven by a variety of factors, ranging from the persistent perception that such foods are somehow “unnatural” and potentially dangerous to the desire to gain competitive advantage by legislating attachment of a label meant to alarm. Another misconception used as a rationale for labeling is that GM crops are untested.”

The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report states: “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.” The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.”


Similarly, in April of this year, over 100 Nobel prize laureates signed a letter to Greenpeace stating, "We urge Greenpeace and its supporters to re-examine the experience of farmers and consumers worldwide with crops and foods improved through biotechnology, recognize the findings of authoritative scientific bodies and regulatory agencies, and abandon their campaign against 'GMOs' in general and Golden Rice in particular."


IV. Conclusion


In conclusion, GM crops are very promising for the future in both improving agriculture and improving our health. The technology used for GMOs is safe, effective, and affordable. We should embrace this technology because within the next 50 years, the global population is expected to climb to over 9.1 billion people. We need 


References

Callaway, Ewen. "HIV Overcomes CRISPR Gene-editing Attack." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 07 Apr. 2016. Web. 31 July 2016. <http://www.nature.com/news/hiv-overcomes-crispr-gene-editing-attack-1.19712>.
Callis, Tom. "Papaya: A GMO Success Story." Hawaii Tribune-Herald. Black Press, 10 June 2013. Web. 31 July 2016. <http://hawaiitribune-herald.com/sections/news/local-news/papaya-gmo-success-story.html>.
Hart, Hope. "What Foods Are Gmo | GMO Answers." GMO Answers. N.p., 18 Sept. 2014. Web. 31 July 2016. <https://gmoanswers.com/ask/what-foods-are-gmo>.
Jones, Leighton. “Genetically Modified Foods.” BMJ : British Medical Journal (1999). (pg. 1) <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1115027/>.

Knight, Meredith. Anti-GMO advocates try to scare diabetics off life-saving genetically engineered drug treatment. 2014. (n.p.) <https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/07/01/anti-gmo-advocates-try-to-scare-diabetics-off-life-saving-genetically-engineered-drug-treatment/>.

Powell, Chelsea. How to Make a GMO. 2015. (n.p.) <http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/how-to-make-a-gmo/>.

Reardon, Sara. "Leukaemia Success Heralds Wave of Gene-editing Therapies." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 05 Nov. 2015. Web. 31 July 2016. <http://www.nature.com/news/leukaemia-success-heralds-wave-of-gene-editing-therapies-1.18737>.
Tagliabue, Giovanni. “The nonsensical GMO pseudo-category and a precautionary rabbit hole.” Nature Biotechnology (2015). (pg 2) Web. <http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v33/n9/full/nbt.3333.html>.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-07-31 06:12:35
| Speak Round
adminadmin (CON)
I'd like to thank Kohai for doing this debate with me. Unfortunately he had to concede my 100th debate on the site to me, so maybe by completing this debate we can make up for it. It's a great topic.

Pro spent most of their case discussing GM as pertains to the scientific research behind it. The question is not, however, whether such technology presently exists in a safe form - that is irrelevant to the resolution. The question is whether we should generally embrace the technology. Many technologies may be embraced even when we do not yet know if they are safe - that just means we study them further. In the case of GMOs there is a clear spectrum - some are somewhat safer / more tested than others. It's not anyone's contention in this debate that untested or unsafe GMOs ought to be released into the environment, so I'm not sure why pro spent over half their case justifying this and explaining how genetic modification works - especially given that most of that wasn't even his own material, but cited directly from another source.

Let me therefore discuss the one argument pro did raise - our health - that gene editing helps produce insulin and may one day remove HIV. He also mentioned the Golden Rice project to overcome potential Vitamin A deficiencies, which I find particularly worrying so I'll address that first. Finally I'll raise a substantive point about the environmental impact of genetic modification.

Diet
At the outset, I want to say that mass medication through what we eat or drink is incompatible with the role of science. It is ethically unsound and the social consequences are reprehensible. Make no mistake - changing the genetic makeup of rice is at best similar to efforts like fluoridating drinking water, iodizing salt, forcing people to take vaccines etc - it's just the forcing of another medicine (in this case, vitamin A) on to a large population. Regardless of whether you think that taking vitamin A supplements is good for you personally, that's your decision. You should not go to the supermarket to find that all the growers have added vitamin A to their rice as your staple household food, much like all those other cases are unjust.

This technology exists primarily to replace existing crops rather than complement them. It promises superior crops which earn more for the farmer, so why wouldn't a decent hard-working farmer make the switch? It might seem logical, especially when those crops are well-tested. So then genetic modification reduces the variety of crops in the market, and at the same time forces large populations to take particular medication. The assumption behind this is that some biologist sitting at a seed company or something has an exact idea of the medical conditions and history of everyone who eats rice. Principally that's indefensible - it's the same sort of thinking that would impose eugenics for the scientific reason of reducing genetic disease. Practically that's impossible - there's no way whatever middle manager approved the golden rice project could prove that it would never cause vitamin A toxicity, for example, which is a real thing and very harmful. In the 80s people were talking about vaccine bananas in the same way. Even if the banana were perfectly safe, releasing them into the market is almost certainly not safe. Fortunately people cottoned on to that idea back then.

I'm fairly certain in my belief that people have the ability and ought to have the right to decide what goes into their bodies. That means it's better to have vitamin A supplements for those that want them than to force vitamin A on all rice eaters. Or you could just drink milk. Or eat fish. Or like, most fruits and vegetables. Vitamin A may be a struggle in many countries but only because it is symptomatic of poor nutrition and not anything specific regarding a lack of medicine. Maybe these efforts would be much better spent in making sure everyone can eat well.

Medicine
Let's then discuss HIV or insulin. Insulin deficiencies (like diabetes) and HIV are both diseases that we can agree need solving. He mentioned leukemia briefly, didn't expand too much on it, but the principle I'm about to describe here is the same. It's all recombinant medicines after all (well, the HIV one doesn't really exist, but you get the point).

Here's the thing. Pro has completed ignored the political, ethical and social side of the equation. To him it's all about efficient production of effective medicine. By this principle something like leucotomy looks awesome - very efficient, very effective. Until you consider literally everything else about lobotomies etc, anyway. I'm not saying anything quite so dramatic is likely to be the result of genetic modification - but I am saying that a strictly scientific account is inadequate in some circumstances. I'm all for producing medicine and curing people of stuff that's wrong with them. There are ways to do that without genetic modification.

The problem is that it's fundamentally no different from golden rice. There's no problem I have with the finished product of medicine, only a problem with the process used to create it. And that problem is that it's this same principle that scientists use in the lab, can also be extended to the wider world. If it's ok to create hybrid organisms for the purposes of deriving medicine, then that justifies the creation of something like golden rice. All the harms of such projects can also be further extended to medicine.

It's like how people are usually willing to accept animal testing in a lab but not in a field - the idea being that if it's out of sight, it's out of mind. But the reality is that both can be equally harmful under certain conditions.

Environment
The environment is a pretty important thing to protect. Biodiversity not only gives us important scientific insights, it also protects the ecosystem as a whole by making it less resilient to pests etc. Because of the variety of species in our world, that's our strongest defense. When an ecosystem has been isolated for a long time, it starts to deteriorate and become less resilient. That's the reason why places like Hawaii lost so much biodiversity in the first place - many were made extinct due to the islands' isolation and the introduction of foreign species. Bio-engineered species are even more new species, not replacements for the originals.

There's two major mechanisms by which genetic modification diminishes this. First, if some gene is very popular, that gene is likely to outcompete others. For example, say some gene confers resistance to a disease among cotton trees. Cotton farmers would therefore attempt to secure seeds that had that gene in order to protect their crop, thereby removing some element of genetic variation in so doing. Second, cross-pollination, especially for plants (although cross-breeding is the same on principle in animals). Simply by having one field of GM cotton trees over here and non-GM cotton trees over there, you might end up with two fields of GM cotton trees before you know it.

Such genes may have long-term effects on the environment that field trials cannot immediately assess. For example, sure that gene does one thing, but what if it's damaging down the road, perhaps to another species, or in terms of making it weaker in some other respect. Furthermore, when there is less variability, attacks on one cotton tree will inevitably be more damaging to all the other cotton trees. That makes cotton as a whole at risk, which is problematic for anyone who doesn't like to be naked most of the time.

The resolution is negated.

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-08-05 00:11:45
| Speak Round
Cross-Examination
Kohai: Thank you so much for accepting this debate. Do you agree that there are advantages to genetic modification that can lead to tremendous benefit for humanity?
admin: No. Do you agree we sometimes need to be cautious about embracing science?
Kohai: Sure. Why do you disagree with the benefits of GMOS? Also why would you reject the scientific consensus
admin: Well Kohai, lucky for you, I just spent a really long round justifying why I don't think GMOs are of tremendous benefit to humanity. I don't know that this goes against any scientific consensus. Science is a process for finding out more about the natural world. It is not something that can inform us in a moral sense or otherwise. That's why you agreed just now that sometimes, people need be cautious about blindly embracing science. Do you intend to address such issues also in the debate, and if so, what positive values do you associate GM technology with?
Kohai: Yes, I will discuss this extensively in the next round. The positive values I see GM technology is improving medicine (i.e. insulin, gene editing therapy etc.) Also improving agriculture to be able to sustain a larger population.
Kohai: Genetic modification is a broad category. We should be careful not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
admin: Alright so to clarify, is your principle value here health?
Kohai: Yes, my principle value here is improving health and improving agriculture.
Kohai: Do you see any possible benefit with using GM technology? If so, what are they? If not, why not?
admin: There may be benefits, but I don't see them as outweighing the harms. I think you've done a pretty good job of explaining some of the benefits while also overstating them, and ignoring the potential costs.
admin: Just to press you on this point regarding health and agriculture, would you also promote banning McDonalds or other unhealthy food outlets? Would you burn down low-yielding crops in the name of science?
Kohai: Sounds good. In the next round, I will respond to the harms in depth.
Kohai: I would not promote banning McDonalds or unhealthy foods, nor would I burn down low-yielding crops. Allow me to reverse the question, would you burn down GM fields (as have been done), or promote banning GM technology?
admin: I would support that insofar as it is legally permissible. I can openly admit that, for example, when New Zealand legalized GM field trials, I was marching against that decision. Given that you feel that science should not always mandate a minimum agricultural yield or level of health, where exactly do you draw the line? When does your value hold and when does it not hold?
Kohai: I don't really draw a line. Farmers should have a choice in whether or not they will grow GM Crops.
admin: But you agree that we should embrace GM for the sake of health, but not embrace banning McDonalds for health, right? Surely there's a line drawn between those two somewhere?
admin: To clarify the question, really what I'm asking is when are exceptions made to these principles, since you agree they are not absolute.
Kohai: I will discuss those questions in the next round as there is not enough space to adequately discuss it during C-X.
Kohai: But just to clarify my positions, the primary benefits I see in GM technology is the following: 1) Improving and innovating agriculture to sustain a growing population; 2) Improving medications (i.e. insulin); 3) Using gene therapy to aid in fighting diseases; and 4) Improving nutrition in foods.

Return To Top | Speak Round


View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
KohaiKohai
@admin just a quick correction, where it says "In April of this year," it should read, "In June of this year." Look forward to your reply and CX
Posted 2016-07-31 06:15:46
KohaiKohai
@admin would love to debate you on it
Posted 2016-07-31 03:09:10
adminadmin
@Kohai would you mind if I take this?
Posted 2016-07-31 00:45:37
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

There are no judgements yet on this debate.

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 3 rounds
  • 15000 characters per round
  • No reply speeches
  • Uses cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds means forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 5 days
  • Time to vote: 2 weeks
  • Time to prepare: None
  • Time for cross-examination: 2 days