Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 23 April 2008 | 452, 919 (2008) | doi:10.1038/452919a
News
Swiss 'dignity' law is threat to plant biology
Government ethics-committee guidelines could halt techniques such as hybridization of roses.
When it comes to the ethics of experimenting on living subjects, plant biologists have had cause for a certain smugness. But perhaps no longer in Switzerland.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email redesign@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
My concern may be geared more towards the end result of genetic modifications that might "not respect the dignity" of plants; but is it possible to harm others in the plant world via wind or insect carried pollination? For a hypothetical example, could a mega green-bean that gives us a big vitamin boost and reverses large quantities of greenhouse gasses while it grows, but no longer has the ability to reproduce, eventually effect the abilities of other green-beans -- or even flowers, tomatoes, etc. -- via cross-pollination?
Please tell me that this is merely a three-week old April Fool's story that somehow slipped by the editors.
Well, I have no idea how the dignity of plants will be saved by this new law, but I've got a feeling that this will be a great humiliation to Swiss plant biologists.
This is pure insanity - like reading a dis-topic Si-Fi novel... The people behind those views would have us sitting in a cave like Neanderthals! This would harm no living being's "dignity" but ours (and we will probably end up extinct, too)... How about the dignity of people dieing from hunger in Africa and Asia, which would be saved by better crops? It is very easy for rich (and, frankly, bored) Europeans to indulge in this sort of stupidity, as their food supply is not limited. Unfortunately, the developing countries are counting on Europe and US to do the science they so acutely need.
Alas, googling "dignity of plants" shows that this idea has been around for a while. The recent Swiss pontifications (which are indeed dated April 2008) would make entertaining reading had they appeared in The Onion. I hope that this is no more than a joke that got out of hand.
Sure. Dignity of plants. It would be really interesting to know were fundings will be diverted to in case this joke becomes a real law. Or the contribution of the illuminist green party to this flumboyant initiative. It`s tipical of people not having serious arguments behind what they say to move the centre of attention from the real matters to preposterous ethical issues nobody ever heard before, in such a way to avoid the burden one has to carry when having to be consistent with facts.
For me, the issue of “dignity†is based on observing the unanticipated adverse effects our bio-technology has already accomplished: spread of exotic invasive weeds, insects, and even mammals; accelerated spread of human and livestock diseases; and, of course, changes in ecosystem functioning like the failure of the altered Mississippi Delta to ameliorate against a large hurricane (itself perhaps influenced by global climate change). If we ceased our hubris regarding our ability to command and control natural processes, we’d be better off. Therefore, it is appropriate to focus on the “dignity†of natural processes and organisms. Perhaps the dignity of plants could be respected by such actions as 1) bioengineering use of genes only if they are from the same genus; 2) no marker genes left in the finished product (unless they, too, come from the same genus); 3) field trials preceded by extensive greenhouse trials that seek to discover any effects on non-target species or processes (e.g. could reduced-lignin switchgrass pass its traits to wild-type? If so, what would be the survivability of these weakened plants and what would be the repercussions to prairie ecosystems?).
The first and, from the plant’s point of view, perhaps the most important consequence of the law is to ban all consumption of living plants, the killing of plants through cooking, or the consumption of foods derived from the eating of living plants by animals -- to say nothing of the violation of the animals’ dignity by killing, cooking and eating them or by the consumption of their bodily fluids including milk and its processed products. It would not be an infringement of dignity to eat (with or without cooking) the remains of plants and animals which have died a natural and dignified death – if you can find them before other scavengers get there first. These proscriptions may or may not interfere with the dignity of the Swiss but that is clearly a minor consideration compared with the dignity of the plants and animals. We can only hope that such laws will be speedily enacted throughout all of the United Nations thereby promptly bringing an end to global warming.
The ship of reason capsizes in a sea of bat-sh*t craziness.
Let's avoid the batsh*t and try to really understand each other. I am well aware that I eat lettuce while it is still alive and it dies as I chew. That dignified death has been part of life on earth since the origin. My garden, where I am the one who chooses which plant dies and which one lives is also not contrary to dignity. But dignity is not served when we make profound changes to plants with repercussions that extend beyond the farm into broader ecosystem processes.
Prohibit lawn mowing! Day to day the dignity of grass plants is disrespected when people carelessly cut it. The outer shape of the plant is destroyed and their reproduction is made impossible. It is insane what is currently happening in European legislation regarding scientific testing!
I'm not yet a plant biologist, but there is not such a far way from me to get there. How ever, I am swiss. And I can ensure you this is no joke. The Problem is, that in this ethics commission, there is no one that is in any sense professional in plantbiology (There are theologists, some people that believe only in alternative medicine, people that have nothing to do with plants at all). The commission decides also if other experiments other than field or plant experiments are allowed or not, like the article says at the end. The Problem is indeed to define if one cuts down a bush at the corner of a streed, becaue then, the cardrivers can see, what comes from the other streed, if then the dignity is conserved for the plant or not. Scientists can imagine a lot of occations that one would have to define that dignity is lost, in more or less normal situations, as for example the forced pollination of a flower with preventing selfpollination by castration. Or to cut trees down, without a good reason. I'm sure that this all comes because in switzerland the fear of GMO is huge, even if arguments are not many. And another point is, that in switzerland, a scientists word does not count more than a word from a fanatic person that does not argument but just scream paroles. In my opinion, the average swiss guy does not agree that a person that studied on the field, will have more experience than one that just does the negotiation of a field, in cause of religious arguments or what ever. That lies somehow in the swiss caracter. I could go on and on. Fact is, that if Plantbiology is once down in switzerland, then its down...
Please do not be offensive, I am trying to engage you in a real conversation between people who have real concerns. Forget lawn mowing and other insulting examples, let's really try to find common ground. Thank you.
Nature is (by chance) a rather disgusting system where every living thing must paracite on other entities, just to survive. For thousands of years the human animal has been trying to climb out of the primitive 'pit' of ignorance and savagery toward a process refered to as 'civilization'. It is based on a strong, ethical analysis of the way we live, overlaid upon the demands of biology, in that we must consume 'food', and fresh water inorder to survive, but we are becoming aware that there is also an ethical, and survival component to our continued residence on this planet. That we must minimize our willful dammage to the existing biosphere, if we wish to continue to use it. Respect for all our neighbours on this planet, especially from the viewpoint that only we, the naked ape, can see the past present and future in sufficient detail to plan for the well being and survival of our total environment. This initiative, in demonstrating a mindfullness of this responsibility is most welcome. It will be part of our future, if we are to have one.
It is precisely because we have such respect for plants as the suppliers of our food on earth and for the provision of materials that we depend on for our daily lives that humans endeavour to nurture plants and enhance their potential for sustainable productivity. These activities have been going on since the beginning of agriculture. What about the dignity of those who are starving?
As a plant biologist currently working in Switzerland I was surprised to read about the 'guidelines' concerning plant dignity. Overall, I feel that these initiatives are at best a waste of time and at worst a potential threat to science. These events are not so surprising. Many in Switzerland want their country to have a reputation for clean 'organic' farming and this is surely laudable. But the debate has unfortunately got out of hand. Such discussions and 'guidelines' are part of an endless series of what Blaise Pascal might have included as 'diversions'. Diversions essentially draw our attention away from the realities of the present and future. Would it not be more constructive to address current issues for which we have good quantitative data, and for which scientific advice is available? The ethics committees should be more open to facts and, avoiding diversion, should focus more on the present. Their discussions could reflect an awareness of current issues such as the potentially excessive use of certain pesticides on crops like vines and potatoes right here on the doorstep. In any case a little more scientific input from plant biologists working in Switzerland could and should be invited.
Ann . -- I think you're being idealistic (and this is a bad thing) when you talk about preventing us making profound changes to plants which then affect the broader ecosystem. There have already been such profound changes made in abundance, by nature. Apparently Vibrio cholerae has derived some of its lethal design from cabbage, for example. I'm not particularly comfortable with the idea of making super-weeds but I don't suspect that anyone is deliberately trying to - or that we can usefully prevent them doing so by accident. If we hamper research out of fear, then more fool us.
There are worthwhile debates to be had about GMOs, terminator genes, intensive farming, and so forth, but "dignity of creation" is not a valid basis for them. The phrase was not legally defined and means nothing. It's an applause light, not a serious contribution to any debate. In practice it is going to mean "nothing new" or "nothing that makes an uninformed layman go 'ick'", unless the courts stamp on it very firmly with case law. Or would that be an affront to the "dignity of law"?
While I don't dispute that consideration of 'plant dignity' is a strange way of defining this argument, let me point out a few key issues from the article. One of the stipulations to this decision tree for funding of technology would be to no longer fund those which lead to a plant's inability to reproduce. I agree that this seems extreme, given the history of plant husbandry and such resulting products such as Tea Roses, which in fact do not reproduce. However, let me point out that many of our genetically modified plants, and those slated to be tinkered with, are food crops. My concern is that when we give companies the patents to create these non-reproducing food crops, we take the ability to produce food from the hands of the people and put it into the control of corporations. Giving considerations to plants is not to be solely a plant issue, but a human one. I agree with Edward. As an ecologist who specializes in the role of plants in the ecosystem, I am frustrated that professionals like myself are too often left out of the loop on key decisions. Professionals in industries concerning human ones do not often understand that our trophic levels make us wholely dependent on the health and longevity of the plant kingdom- yet our scientists understand this system only as clearly as they understand the workings of the human brain. Perhaps the Swiss should consult with professionals in the industry to develop a language that more clearly defines terms we can all work with. At the core, we scientists need more presence in governing boards, including federal ones.
(1) There is surprisingly little science in this "discussion on science" involving practically important effects. But actually it is the details that matter, not "general considerations", let alone subjective preferences and beliefs. If modern science were able to really understand the genome operation dynamics, at least in its major details, there would be no objective, fundamental reason to oppose genetic experimentation, e.g. through those "ethics commissions" with their "funny" decisions. Unfortunately, it's not the kind of science you officially support: today's scholar science doesn't understand the real genome operation dynamics and accepts its "sequential", or "linear-programme", model that, as they increasingly acknowledge themselves, does not correspond at all to real system dynamics and reflects its indispensable but very small part. Therefore they are changing the system they don't understand by modifying its "infinitely small" portion they know and then "verify" the result reliability by the eternal "trial-and-error" method. But the problem is that those complex bio-systems possess a delayed-response property: they show a reasonable EXTERNAL resistance to certain modifications, while accumulating their various results in a latent form, until their liberation in an unpredictable and catastrophic form during inevitable "revolutionary" change in future. Such is the universal dynamics of that famous "punctuated equilibrium" in evolution (i.e. big and rapid changes after years of visible stagnation). But now there are those new, crazy "gods" that imagine they can replace Nature and accelerate biological evolution to any desired degree, but in reality they do not understand its real, unreduced dynamics at all. In such situation, straightforward limitation by those non-professional bans emerges as the only possible solution, very imperfect, of course (in particular, those bans can hardly be accepted and thoroughly observed everywhere), but it's still better than pushing natural systems consciously and deliberately towards the inevitable catastrophe. (2) Truly "progressive", objectively consistent solution exists, of course, but it can only be based on a qualitatively different kind of knowledge, which is just able to understand all the essential system dynamics, in its full complexity, and then modify it while clearly understanding all possible results. One can find further, rigorously substantiated details at http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0502133 and in my recent comment here, http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080416/full/452788b.html?q=2#comments . Needless to say, those "science defenders" against "attacks on science" by "irrationally thinking people", suddenly become very irrational themselves when they are proposed a new, deeper kind of knowledge that could uniquely ensure both science progress and nature protection... In the meanwhile, dangerous experimentation continues and grows, those "ethical committees" will change nothing, of course; it's just to say "we did try" when the catastrophe will emerge and one will be forced to urgently stop any research (without being able to stop its destructive results). What can I say, I did try, me too, but note, mine are totally scientific, professional attempts though remaining without support... (3) Even if you're not ready to seriously upgrade your knowledge towards its causally complete version, the necessity of change is clearly perceived, even apart from any subjective "anti-science feelings". Science has become nasty and stagnating, accumulating only random piles of split "technical" data that nobody can put into a properly integrated form (especially in biology). It also becomes subject to omnipresent, multiply recognised internal corruption and injustice (see e.g. http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4562 and recent books http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1599429934 , http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-302479.html?query=Donald+W.+Braben ). How can this kind of activity dominated by evidently inefficient, frustrated but formally imposed doctrine be successful in consistent understanding of highest, biological levels of complexity (when it fails already at much lower, physical ones)? (4) I even do not want to comment on those idiotic considerations about "poor starving people", etc. Because there are problems in the world, you want to aggravate them even more by creating new, really catastrophic ones? It if goes as it does, in the same unreasonable way, very soon so-called "rich" countries will be unable to avoid their own catastrophes and then the problem of help to "poor" ones will quickly lose its importance... [N. B. I live in a "poor" (= stupid!) country and cannot have the food I want, but that doesn't push me to unlimited production of "starving children", rather the contrary...]
1)Of course they don't understand the dynamics. We as a race understand so little about the world as of yet, we've covered much of the "surface" of science, but we do not understand the specifics of many fields, biology being one of them. But how are we to understand them? Should we simply observe a certain system of life until we figure it out, or should we perform an experiment? With many fields, the ethical question does not apply, at least not specificly this one. It applies to the field of biology, the experimentation on other lifeforms, but to what extent? We perform experiments on insects, where is their dignity, how do we measure it? They thrive in what we call filth, but to them it is, well, home really. This applies to plants aswell, how can we know in any sense, what a plant considers it's dignity, or even if they know the meaning of the concept? How can we ever project human concepts upon other living things? We can only identify a few of them within our closest relatives, that is, mammals (some if not all of the concepts do apply to reptiles and mammals though). Pain, fear, affection and hunger are some of the most obvious, I will not try to cover the lot of them, because I will probably be wrong about some of them. The point is, we can relate to some animals to some point, but not much further than that. If we have problem with understanding our closest relatives how can we understand the ones in the extended family? Well, we could simply not try, and leave it at that, or we could research them, find out how they, and at the same time, how we work, how life works. 2)Regarding the corruption of science. I do not belive there is even one field in the whole aspect of humanity that is not thoroughly corrupt in one way or another. Politics are, corporations are, whether they be government owned or not, and science is no different. Of course, not every corporation or government is corrupt, but somewhere there is one that is. So, does it matter that it's corrupt? Yes, of course, but since mostly everything else is too, which one do you try to deal with first? In the world today, we have ridiculous numbers of scientists working. At least some of them must be doing something right....
As Lewis Wolpert correctly points out, - apart from being obliged to faithfully report their work - 'a scientist's ethics' is not to be in any way different from general moral standards. As far as plant science is concerned common ethics is already implemented in the form of biosafety, lab standards, labour legislation and so on. No problem at all giving certain legal rights to entities such as biodiversity, ecosystems, eco-resources etc. as it is clearly in the legislator's (i.e. the people's) interest to respect and to protect these entities. The preambles of most of our research proposals contain a lot of consideration as to how to protect ecosystems and biodiversity by making agriculture, energy production etc. more sustainable. Much more consideration than ethics commissions that implement paradoxical terms in their recommendations.
I am one of the two scientists, who produced genetically modified plants in Switzerland and currently perform field tests in this country. The discussion in these contributions about dignity of plants appears to me as a repetition of the Swiss public discussions of lays about green gene technology as I experience it since about 8 years with only marginal change. Let me make two remarks (1) about the green gene technology discussion and (2) about dignity and how it came into the discussion. Green Gene Technology: Let me make 3 points here, without going into detail (there is plenty of scientific literature available about these topics): (1) We genetically modify plants not in order to avoid interaction with the environment but in order to interact with the environment, e.g. make them more resistant against diseases. We genetically modify plants in order to improve yield as a contribution to reduce the losses of input like seed material, fertiliser, water or soil - to mention only few - which all need precious resources like oil and energy or – the most precious of all - room from natural ecosystems. The aims are the same as in “classical breedingâ€, which uses many methods to enhance the genetic variability, which could now be interpreted as violation of plant dignity. (2) There is no and there was no reasonable safety issue with approved GM plants. Whenever potential problems were encountered, this occurred in the test phase prior to application, showing that the tests are scrupulous. As a result genetically modified plants are the best tested crop plants which we have. Lack of public acceptance has no scientific basis. (3) Dignity of plants might exist. Look at a large flowering cherry tree. When you see that such tree was cut down just because a street had to become a little bit broader, in order make car driving at that point a little more convenient, then you might feel what I mean. This has nothing to do with gene technology. Dignity of Plants: In the course of this discussion, the Swiss parliament took the “dignity of creature†as a political compromise into the constitution without providing any idea what that might mean. This can indeed be interpreted as bad legislation. It was now the difficult task of the ethics committee to explain this term. The dignity term actually holds true for all plants not only for the genetically modified. In fact, the ethics commission proclaimed that genetic engineering of plants does not necessarily violate the dignity of a plant. The effect, however, is predictable: it will be used particularly against GM plants and not in the same way against banana varieties which are unable to propagate since long, because they do not produce seeds - which according to the present definition is against dignity. Already currently, one major weapon of GM opponents in Switzerland are endless lawsuits aiming only to retard experiments and make them as inconvenient and expensive as possible. (In order to illustrate this situation: It took 5 years for the first experiment, approximately 500 pages of applications, and about 650 000 USD in addition to the project fund of 350 000 USD to do a small scale field test with only 1600 GM plants exposing no risk according to scientific assessment). An ambiguous clause like “dignity of plants†will provide many new possibilities in this direction. The whole concept was conceived in a public environment with almost no knowledge about gene technology and methods of classical agriculture. Thus, the law about dignity of plants is something which neither helps the plants nor humans or the environment, it is just one of the numerous stones on the way which make research with GM plants in Switzerland so difficult, and – taken seriously – it would compromise many activities of humans in agriculture, forestry and gardening. Christof Sautter