Daniel Pittman

Life Unlimited?
The Regulation of Genetic Modification

Whenever a new branch of science comes into existence as a result of

recent technological developments, the morality of said branch, and the
extent to which the field may be pursued is almost guaranteed to be brought
into question. Many fear that those behind the advancement of these new
technologies will pursue them relentlessly, without concern for the morality
of their actions or the safety of those that may potentially be affected by
these new technologies. In order to prevent these new fields of science from
getting out of hand, oftentimes governmental regulation is implemented.
These governmental regulations usually demand an extensive series of tests
before approving each experiment that a group of scientists may want to
undertake, in an effort to be sure that the experiment could not be
considered immoral or a danger to society or whomever it may affect
individually. However, at times these tests can be considered completely
unnecessary and little more than a waste of time and money, slowing
scientific progress significantly (Miller and Kershen, 2015, pg. 4). While
governmental regulation is certainly a valuable thing to maintain, especially
in the fields of experimental sciences, the degree to which the government
has control over what may or may not be further developed is something
that cannot be decided lightly. The governments intervention in the
development of new technologies is currently excessively strict, and needs to

be substantially relaxed, lest we continue to waste time and money in an

effort to slow scientific research to a halt.
The importance of regulation in any field of experimental science is not
to be understated. As stated by Samuel, Selgelid, and Kerridge (2009),
There is little disagreement that synthetic life science needs some form of
regulatory control. However, the questions of exactly what should be
regulated, which regulatory structures should be implemented and the type
of governance structures needed all remain a matter of debate (pg. 1).
While many scientists believe that synthetic biology and genetic modification
could be self-regulated by committees made up of scientists in the field,
others think that this type of self-governance would be unreliable, as the
scientists involved might act in their own self-interests, rather than for the
greater interests of society and the environment as a whole (ibid). While this
concern for humanity and indeed, the planet in its entirety is
understandable, the distrust toward the scientific community remains
baffling. Who better to trust with regulating the research and development
of certain technologies than those who are certified experts in their
respective fields? This type of suspicion regarding the motives of these
scientists demonstrates a shameless discrediting of their understanding of
the topic at hand. Some fear that they might act selfishly instead of in the
interests of society and the environment, but in actuality, it would be quite
difficult to find a group of people with a greater understanding of the
potential effects of genetically engineering a single organism. It is as though

the people who think that the scientific community is incapable of

adequately regulating itself also believe that scientists in this field have
some sort of blatant disregard for the environmental consequences that may
come about as a result of genetic engineering.
The potential that genetic modification has for revolutionizing
humanitys way of life is immense. From Golden Rices ability to provide
Vitamin A to areas naturally deprived of it, to the Innate Potatos durability as
a result of its resistance to bruising, it is without question that these kinds of
GMOs could solve many of the problems that plague the world today.
However, despite this, the agencies in charge of regulating these
advancements refuse to relax their standards, even though, as Miller and
Kershen (2015) put it, After the cultivation worldwide of more than 3 billion
acres of genetically engineered crops (by more than 17 million farmers in 30
countries) and the consumption of more than 3 trillion servings of food
containing genetically engineered ingredients in North America alone, there
has not been a single documented ecosystem disruption or a single
confirmed tummy ache (pg. 3). Yet despite the potential that this field of
research has, Most of the federal agencies have ignored both common
sense and the consensus of the scientific community, and policymakers and
federal bureaucrats have crafted regulations that have created formidable
regulatory delays and expense (Miller and Kershen, 2015, pg. 2). Not only
are the regulatory agencies here ignoring common sense (which may be
considered the most fundamental understanding of decision-making), but

they are also ignoring the advice provided by authorities on the subject. To
reiterate, the people in charge of regulating developments in this research
field would rather trust their own intuition than the informed opinions of
those who are well educated in the specific field in question, and are
therefore fully aware of the risks and benefits associated with any
experiment that they might undertake. This is simply ridiculous. We should
not trust these agencies with deciding how scientists should conduct their
business any more than we should trust movie stars to give medical
diagnoses. While a certain degree of regulation implemented to prevent a
potential catastrophe such as a dangerous GMO entering the food supply,
ordering, as Miller and Kershen (2015) put it, excessively complex and
burdensome processes, will only impede scientific development and
continue to [discourage] innovation and [provide] incentives for the
developers of new plant varieties to use inferior but unregulated techniques
(pg. 4).
Overall, the necessity of some kind of regulation in any field of
experimental science is crucial to ensuring that a certain degree of morality
and appreciation of the consequences of ones actions are upheld in any and
all experiments that may take place therein. However, the regulations
imposed by many of the agencies in charge are excessively strict and are a
danger to the advancement of these potentially life-changing technologies
and their subsequent implementation. While a certain caution is
understandable in any kind of scientific pursuit, especially one that deals

directly with life itself, we must allow these scientific fields more freedom so
that they may continue to develop genetically modified organisms with the
ability to combat many of the nutritional crises that occur every day
throughout the planet. At this point, these strict regulations are doing
nothing more than wasting time and money, which, given the state of global
food crises, are two resources we cannot afford to waste.