How do agricultural scientists view advanced biotechnology? If the 20th century belonged to physics, the 21st is likely to belong to biology. Today, basic and applied research in genomics, biotechnology, and genetic engineering is sparking a new scientific revolution. The Human Genome Project is only one aspect of a much larger endeavor to decode and manipulate the genetic makeup of all living matter. Decoding and manipulating plant and animal genomes has the potential to radically transform agricultural and food production. We have already seen the development and diffusion of disease-, insect-, and drought-resistant crops, as well as more-productive farm animals. Biotechnologists are developing edible vaccines that can be incorporated into fresh fruits and vegetables and are working on a broad range of biopesticides, which lead to reduced use of agrichemicals. Ultimately, bioengineered foods may prevent or cure diseases. Driving the genomics revolution in agriculture are the large, multinational life science companies such as Novartis, Monsanto, DuPont, and Dow Chemical (1) and the colleges of agriculture in America’s land grant universities. Sometimes working independently and sometimes working together, the private life science companies and the public land grant universities are not only unfolding the fundamental processes of life, but are also applying their findings to a wide range of practical applications. The potential for commercial development of agriculture-based genomics research is presenting large and small private firms with a wealth of commercial opportunities. Given the imperatives faced by the multinationals to develop and exploit markets for advanced biotechnologies, one might expect private life science companies to speak with one positive voice about the benefits of genomics. Indeed, proponents of capital-intensive, industrially organized, high-yield farming (2, 3) point to the need for agricultural scientists to rise to the challenge of feeding billions more people around the world within the next 50 years. For these advocates of high-tech farming, anything less than a complete embracing of biotechnology represents a dangerous diversion that can lead to reduced crop yields, an increased threat of famine, and ultimately social unrest. Genomics is clearly becoming a focal point for a broad array of programs and activities in colleges of agriculture. However, previous research on the perspectives and values of agricultural scientists suggests that the academic community may hold multiple perspectives on advanced biotechnologies. Furthermore, the strategic alliances formed between colleges of agriculture and private life science companies have become a point of contention among agricultural scientists (4). Two views of agricultural biotechnologies There are at least two distinct views within the land grant system about advanced agricultural biotechnologies. The predominant view is that the role of the land grant system is to educate the public about all aspects of these emerging technologies. Thus, many land grant universities have organized symposia, developed outreach materials, and established liaisons between the public and the university to address questions and disseminate information about biotechnology research on campus. Biotechnology opponents often express the concern that land grant scientists too often advocate—rather than educate about—these technologies. From their perspective, educational materials dealing with biotechnology indiscriminately promote a particular viewpoint and do not acknowledge the potential social and environmental problems associated with these technologies. Although many agricultural scientists believe that the benefits to be gained by developing biotechnologies greatly outweigh any potential costs, a second school of thought in the land grant system endorses a more cautious approach to this line of research. Whereas few agricultural scientists call for an outright ban of biotechnology research, some advocate more inquiry into the impacts of advanced agricultural biotechnologies on the environment, food system, structure of agriculture, rural communities, and population health before large investments are made in this line of research. To address how advanced agricultural biotechnologies are perceived by scientists in America’s land grant universities, data were collected as part of a larger U.S. Department of Agriculture sponsored regional research project (NC-208) titled Impact Analysis and Decision Support Strategies for Agricultural Research. The objective of the larger project was to analyze decision strategies for agricultural biotechnology research funding by state agricultural experiment stations. A survey of agricultural scientists In 1995 and 1996, a sample of 1668 agricultural faculty was drawn from a directory of professional workers in state agricultural experiment stations and cooperating institutions maintained by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. A mail survey was administered following procedures outlined in Dillman (6). After removing undeliverable questionnaires, persons not qualified to participate (i.e., nonprofessorial respondents), and refusals, usable questionnaires were received from 1011 individuals for a response rate of 60.6%. Agricultural scientists in the land grant system believe it is incumbent upon the university to educate the public about advanced biotechnologies. Opponents of biotechnology believe that the university too often promotes a probiotechnology perspective. To capture this dimension among agricultural scientists, I constructed a five-item, summated Education and Promotion Scale (Cronbach’s α = 0.760) (7), based on their views about the role that biotechnology is now playing in land grant colleges of agriculture. Biotechnology refers to “new biotechnologies”—the relatively new genetic and cellular-manipulative technologies such as recombinant DNA, immobilized enzymes, tissue culture, polymerase chain reaction, and protoplast fusion. The respondents were asked to rank their opinions on the following items from 1 (not important and not needed) to 5 (very important and needed right away). More active promotion of the benefits of new biotechnology products by land grant administrators and scientists Greater emphasis by agricultural extension services on farmer education on biotechnology More intensive public educational programs about biotechnology More biotechnology research by land grant colleges of agriculture More emphasis by land grant researchers on biotechnology products that enable farmers to use fewer chemical inputs
Posted on: Sun, 04 Jan 2015 07:05:54 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015