Socioeconomics and Agricultural Biotechnology: The Challenges

Valerie Askren and Lori Garkovich

University of Kentucky

Educator’s Notes

Presented at the

National Science Teachers Association Annual Convention

Bridges to New Frontiers - Professional Development

Louisville, KY

October 25, 2002

Introduction:

The following notes are to accompany the slide show presentation that Askren and Garkovich developed for the NSTA’s annual meeting. An abbreviated power point presentation obscures the complexity of the issues we actually discussed. Unfortunately, without hearing our presentation, this rendered many of our “points” out of context. Consequently we have added these Educator’s Notes AND placed notes within the body of the Power Point slide show itself.

Slide 1

Dr. Lori Garkovich is a Professor in the Department of Community and Leadership Development. Ms. Valerie Askren is a Research Specialist in the Department of Agricultural Economics. This presentation was given at the National Science Teacher Association’s annual meeting in Louisville, Kentucky October 25, 2002. Please see the Power Point slide show that accompany these notes.

Slide 2

Have students develop their own definition of “Biotechnology” prior to showing these “textbook” definitions. Discuss the difference between the first definition (an earlier, more general definition) and the latter (much more specific, and reflective of current connotative use.)

Slide 3

Comments on disruptive versus incremental technologies:

“Disruptive technology” is a “new economy” term that has seen increased use by those interested in technological innovation. In contrast, “incremental technologies” are those technologies that utilize change at the margin. The example of an incremental technology is the conventional cross-breeding of a red petunia with a white petunia, to get a red/white striped petunia. Another example might be incremental changes in word processing software. In general, incremental technologies are easily accepted and widely-valued, although many do use the slippery slope argument to counter suspected long-term impacts.

A “disruptive technology” refers to those technological innovations that are truly “paradigm shifting” (to use an older, over-used and burnt-out term!). Disruptive technologies alter the way in which we see and interact with the world. Examples might include geothermal or solar power, or medical vaccinations. Although the term “disruptive technology” may sound as if it has a negative connotation, that is not the intent of the descriptor or the user. (Interestingly, back in the 1920's and 30's, plant hybridization would have been deemed a “disruptive technology”.)

By definition, disruptive technologies do not blur the line between nature and manmade processes. But, many people who object to the use of biotechnology view it as such, and therefore regard it as suspect. Part of this group would argue that agricultural applications of biotech, and medical ones as well, are indeed “playing god” (for example, Seventh-Day Adventist). While Askren and Garkovich are not espousing this view, it is a common criticism of biotechnology.

Of course, biotech is not the only thing that “offers enormous power to alter the fundamental character of life”! Remember “Quest for Fire”, the movie about how the ability to create and preserve fire changed the migration patterns, diet, nutrition, and life span of early man? Thus, those things that do offer this enormous power are not necessarily “bad” things. Yet these disruptive technologies cause us to pause a little longer and evaluate a little more rigorously. Obviously, these concerns lead to a more emotional reaction to the debate. And unfortunately, “good scientific rigor” may go by the way-side.

Slide 4

“Think, Write, Pair, Share” exercises are wonderful ways to get your students to formulate their own ideas prior to hearing other’s respond to your questions. (Remember, the fastest thinkers are not always the best thinkers!) Have students do this in pairs; then ask for responses to your question. Results can also be collected for points.

Slide 6

Have students think of other examples in which sides of an issue are polarized. What are the dangers of creating dichotomies?

Slide 9

Comments on Intrinsic versus Extrinsic Objections:

These terms are simply one way to formulate ethical arguments for and against something, ultimately leading to a deeper understanding of the issue. Intrinsic objections basically argue that the ends do not justify the means. For example, if you believe that taking another life is wrong under any circumstances, the “good” that could come out of “murder” is irrelevant. That would include taking another life in war, for self-defense, or to protect your daughter from a rapist.

Thus, if someone finds that “any technique that uses living organisms...” is unacceptable based on intrinsic objections, biotechnology would be unacceptable. Period.

Extrinsic objections argue that the means may be acceptable, but the ends are not. Using the example above, it may be permissible to “take another life” under certain conditions but not others (just because that $*#* took your parking space!).

This exercise was to simply help students analyze in a more structured manner why they object to biotechnology (or anything else for that matter). Further, if their arguments fall under the extrinsic objections category, using sound logical analysis, a person can better explore under what conditions do they find biotechnology acceptable and why. Is Bt corn ok - but human cloning not? This would incorporate the possible positive social and/or environmental consequences regarding biotechnology. This discussion is also a perfect lead-in to classroom activities on risk identification, assessment and management.

Slide 10

Dynamite!

This is an excellent example of something that few people have intrinsic objections to, but might have extrinsic objections. We can add some other examples, but the bottom line is that although many technologies “by their very nature are quite dangerous”, some have had wonderfully positive consequences for humankind. Dynamite falls into that category. By using a colorful example, you grab a students interest and keep them engaged. The intent was not to directly compare dynamite to biotechnology. Using cell phones is another example.

Slide 11

Business of Biotechnology

Obviously, biotechnology is not the only science that has been corrupted - if it has been “corrupted” at all. One could argue that all sciences have been corrupted by the profit motive - Provision of AIDS treatments to African populations? The Tuskegee experiment? Food aid? Isn’t international aid of all kinds simply neocolonialistic? The point is - some people argue that this is a valid criticism of biotech research. And equally importantly - what are the counter arguments to this assertion? It is important to discuss both in detail.

Slide 13

Genetic Pollution

This is a term widely recognized in the biotech debates. It also an emotional term - therefore - wonderful for stimulating further debate amongst students. Critical thinking about what constitutes pollution is exactly our intent. This is also an inflammatory term that the anti-biotech activists use to frame the issue. That’s why we chose it for a classroom activity.

Slide 16

Public hearing

This could also have been a pubic hearing to consider a proposal to increase public funding, or a host of other ideas. The public hearing format is simply a device to get students to study an issue, understand both sides of a debate, articulate a position, and participate in both written and public communication formats.

Slide 19

This data is available on the United States Department of Agriculture’s web page at http://www.usda.gov/

Slide 20

This data is available on The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri‑biotech Applications (ISAAA) web page at http://www.isaaa.org/