Beware of biotechnology . . .

Jeremy Rifkin’s essay “Biotech Century” introduced a discussion that was entirely new to me. I had previously been aware that biotechnology was commonly used in the agricultural industries, but I did not understand exactly how far scientists have come in the field of genetic modification. I am shocked that they can (and willingly do) insert an “antifreeze” gene from flounders into tomatoes to make them immune to frost! (314) Rifkin obviously represents only one side of the debate – that which is opposed to the use of biotechnology. He stresses that unregulated advances in the field will bring about “the uncontrollable spread of super weeds, the buildup of resistant strains of bacteria and new super insects, the creation of novel viruses, the destabilization of whole ecosystems, the genetic contamination of food, and the steady depletion of the gene pool” (318). His argument is very convincing, although I agree with the editors that he has a tendency to overstate his claims (311). Innovation and discovery can be wonderful things, but when we don’t have the capacity to calculate any risks from the creation of new genetic material, new plants and animals, we enter into an unknown, potentially unstable world. I am very sympathetic to Rifkin’s point; however, I do think that he does his argument a disservice by not truly addressing any counterarguments. Why are these companies investing so much in biotechnology? Assumedly, these companies are making large amounts of money, but there must be some possible benefit to society as well. If Rifkin had addressed those points and then successfully countered them, the article would have felt much more complete.