b'SINCE YOU ASKEDBY: NIELS LOUWAARSWHY IT IS SO DIFFICULT TO COMMUNICATE BIOTECHNOLOGY?B esides science, we all know that agriculture involves cul- development. The partner, however, goes beyond this practical ture. We cultivate (i.e. agri-culture contributes to cultureapproach in that exhaustion is avoided for the sake of nature and human values) to the natural environment. Farmingitselfparticular values are assigned to nature and natural is not nature; we learn from nature and use that knowledge tophenomena. Finally, the participant cannot really use nature produce the goods that we need. Farmers plant 160,000 beanas he is just an intrinsic part of it. These are very personal per-plants on a hectare. In nature, this would never happen. In agri- ceptions that shape our thinking about many things, including culture, cereals keep their seeds on the plants waiting for theagriculture and breeding. They cannot easily be rationalized.farmer to pass and harvest them for our bread and beer. NatureI think that most seedsmen consider themselves steward would make sure that seeds are shed and spread widely. rather than ruler. We can study nature and make the laws of It appears that people do not have this concept in mindnature work for us as long as we dont create too serious neg-when they speak about certain breeding methods as unnatural.ative side effects. At the same time, we do realize that biology This is commonly followed by the argument that because of that(breeding) and ecology (farming) are very complex and that lack of naturalness, such breeding methods or their productswe havent grasped all their secrets yet. The world view of the should be avoided or at best be strictly and extensively regu- organic sector on the other hand, or at least a major part of lated. In debates I often follow the same logic as with agricul- it, is rather that humankind is the partnerand sometimes ture: breeders also learn from nature and use that knowledge toeven close to a participantwhich means that for them the produce better varieties for farmers, processors and consumers.concepts of intrinsic value and integrity are real. This makes it The commonly encountered popular logic can cause pretty basicvery difficult for them to accept certain human interventions. I problems when policy issues are discussed that are relevant forwas explained recently that invading the cell or the genome our sector, such as gene editing. Rational discussions can focuschallenges the intrinsic value of the organism. That is the main on risks and hazards, notably in relation to human (and animal)reason why for such individuals, gene editing is not acceptable, health and the environment. It becomes more complex whenand not even conventional mutation breeding. Even when the socio-economic arguments enter the debate, such as the roleproducts of such interventions result in precise copies of natural of technology in relation to mergers and concentration trendsmutations, they consider it wrong that people willfully enter the in the seed industry. But it becomes really problematic whencell to manipulate it. The actor counts, not the outcome. ethics, and particular words like natural, intrinsic value andHow to discuss gene editing policies with such individ-integrity of the genome are thrown into the debate. A commonuals? Rational arguments about safety and legal arguments result is that we lose track of the line of thinking and either startabout interpretation of words are irrelevant in such discus-to speak louder and louder in our (natural) scientific right orsions. Questioning the basic assumptions is not accepted. Even fall silent because we are totally lost. Neither reaction is likelyif we dont share such views, we may have to respect them. We to be productive. can stress though that such ethical principles are highly per-I recently came across a line of thought that helped mesonal and that we could expect respect for the steward-views understand where such remarks may come from. In our rela- as well. The result should then be that when the (IFOAM-type) tionship with natureyes, nature remains importanteveryorganic sector is welcome to avoid (products of) such tech-person has particular personal starting points. We can considerniques because of such worldviews, they should in return not ourselves ruler, steward, partner, or participant. The former con- vote against the use by the conventional sector that may hold siders mankind the owner of nature with which we can do whatdifferent views. It also means that we should be willing to inform we want. The ruler can use nature for its needs, irrespectivebreeders for the organic sector (and farmers) about our varieties of the impact on nature. Mining and deforestation have broughtwhen they ask about breeding methods used so that they may wealth but also destroyed cultures, such as those of remoteavoid using them in further breeding. Companies do that already Pacific islands when the natural resource base was depleted.with regard to CMS in the absence of regulation. The steward has no problem using natural resources, but at the same time feels a responsibility towards this use, which isNiels Louwaars is the Managing Director at Plantum. This commonly translated in terms of avoiding exhausting the nat- article does not necessarily reflect the views of allural environment so that also the next generations can bene- Plantum members.fit. This is a more common approach in our age of sustainable EUROPEAN-SEED.COMIEUROPEAN SEED I 39'