This month's reading is a privately-circulated working
draft collectively written by eleven academic and lay women
in Western Massachusetts. In clear and simple language their
highly informative article skillfully debunks seventeen
prominent myths about genetic engineering (e.g., "It
will solve world hunger by increasing productivity" or
"It is safe because we have government
regulations"). This grassroots work-in-progress has
resulted in a position paper on the subject that is genuinely
ecofeminist.
In agreement with the Massachusetts draft, women at this
month's session were likewise alarmed by the macabre
prospects posed by genetic engineering: square tomatoes,
patented mice, designer babies. One woman found some
consolation in the fact that a wide range of groups have a
vested interest in coalescing against this new
Frankenscience.
Activists organizing around such issues as
reproductive rights, health, nutrition, agriculture, the
environment, animal rights, eugenics, racism, or Third World
development will all be confronted by biotechnology's
far-reaching influence. Another woman was heartened that even
gourmet chefsa generally apolitical lothave
joined forces to demand government labeling of
genetically-altered food. Consumers are entitled to know for
instance when tomatoes are spiked with a flounder's genes
(ostensibly to withstand freezing temperatures).
One woman
was certain that as a group feminists surely object to
genetic engineering. Other women, however, noted that just as
some feminists supported the Gulf War (ex., Geraldine
Ferraro), there are inevitably those feminists who "just
don't get it." Manhattan Borough President Ruth
Messinger, an ardent feminist, was mentioned for her
compromising role in jumping on the "biotechnology =
jobs" bandwagon.
One woman said it is like the 50's all
over again when the public was cheerleading nuclear energy,
having been told it was "clean." Considering it
took roughly thirty years to establish a mainstream
anti-nuclear mass movement, we felt our planet simply cannot
endure several decades of rampant genetic manipulation.
Given the known dangers of biotechnology (not to mention
the unknown ones), several women wondered how the body
politic can remain so impervious to its effects. A few women
blamed capitalism not only for promoting the commodification
of nature, but for encouraging a climate of aggressive
opportunism at the expense of a responsible public policy.
Other women concurred that the entire scientific process
becomes corrupted when money is at stake (ex., Dr. Robert
Gallo's notorious theft of AIDS research from the French in
order to secure patent rights for the U.S. government).
Another woman, a botanist, added that because organic
research doesn't require high tech toys, it's not considered
"sexy." By contrast, the hot new field of
biotechnology has become the darling of the grant-givers and
venture capitalists. Another woman resented that massive
funding isn't devoted to research and development of
earth-friendly technologies such as solar energy, alternative
transportation, recycling, etc. Instead, for example, in 1987
alone, 6,000 patent applications were pending for new life
forms.
One woman questioned whether there is anything
worthwhile about biotechnology. Another woman, an
environmental engineer, suggested that
bioremediationthe use of natural and
genetically-created organisms to clean up toxic waste sites
(as used at the Exxon Valdez oil spill)is a promising
cost-effective development. She acknowledged the perils of
unleashing manmade bacteria into the environment, but felt
any adverse effects on severely contaminated areas is
managable.
Several women objected to bioremediation on
grounds that polluters too often assume science will provide
quick-fix cures. Others responded that we don't have the
luxury of waiting for the perfect remediation. Another
biotech benefit cited was DNA fingerprinting which can
identify rapists with near precision. One woman worried that
it may reinforce the specious theory that violence is
genetic.
Others warned that privacy rights could be easily
trounced on. Another woman added that such high tech methods
would be unnecessary if women's words were just given due
credence. Ultimately, women insisted that social problems
require social solutions. Genetic approaches to crime,
pollution, or world hunger are misguided, expensive, and
Orwellian.
One woman earnestly asked, Is it not in the nature of
human curiosity to know and learn all we can? Isn't the
spirit of rigorous scientific inquiry laudable? Many of us
believed not, especially when ecological holocaust is at
stake. A woman who works with (and appreciates) computers
argued that she is not a Luddite blindly opposed to any and
all technology. Rather, she rejects technology when it
violates democratic processes.
As the authors write:
"Every technological 'advance' in this century has taken
control from local people, from small scale agriculturists,
from family farms." Another woman advised that in any
quest for knowledge, ethical considerations must be
absolutely paramount. Without ethics, Nazi experiments on
concentration camp prisoners would invite legitimacy, and the
barbarity of animal experimentation would go unchallenged.
In
sum, we recommended that all genetically-based projects
proceed cautiously, involve comprehensive global grassroots
input and monitoring, and clearly articulate their impact on
the next seven generations. Had such ecofeminist guidelines
been followed in the past, the inventors of DDT would never
have been given a green light, let alone awarded a Nobel
Prize.
Back to Essay Topics