by Tom Hodges, John Graveel, Bob Joly, Jim Vorst
Examine the ethical issues involved with using herbicide resistant rice.
Red Rice is a serious weed in rice production fields in North and South America. Red rice is extremely dffficult to control because rice and red rice are dffferent cultivars of the same genus and species, (Oryza sativa L), and will therefore interbred. The outcrossing frequency is approximately 2% which is considered high by plant breeding standards. This means that in rice fields infested with red rice, traits of rice can be rapidly transferred to the red rice.
Rice has been genetically engineered to have a herbicide resistant gene. Because of outcrossing, it is apparent that if herbicide resistant rice were grown in red rice infested fields, the red rice would acquire herbicide resistance. An international donor agency funded the research that engineered rice herbicide resistance, but after examining the potential consequences to U.S. rice production, refused to allow the rice to be released for U.S. production.
A scientist at the international research agency learned of the herbicide resistant rice and requested and received from the donor agency herbicide resistant rice seed for commercial production. The scientist wanted the seed because using the seed would eliminate the chemical load on the environment, and reduce production costs.
In Colombia, typical rice culture consists of tilling the soil, irrigating to germinate all seeds, and chemically killing the emerged seedlings. This process is repeated three times before the seedbed is ready to plant.
The case may be used to explore three sorts of questions.
First, it raises a general question in environmental ethics. Is herbicide resistant (HR) rice a good idea from an environmental perspective? Prima facie, it sounds like a bad idea to bioengineer rice to be resistant to herbicides, because we do not know all of the synergestic effects that come from the use of synthetic chemicals in agroecosystems.
Why not engineer rice to outcompete weeds, to be "weed resistant' as it were, rather than to be capable of growing in different doses and mixes of herbicides? This question is presssing, especially in areas like Indiana and Iowa, where farm chemicals have been showing up in wells for years.
Second, it raises a specific question in international ethics. Why did the international research agency decide that HR rice was a bad idea for domestic U.S. production, but a good idea for Colombia? One answer might be that: (a) there was a fear that through outcropping the HR might be transferred to the red rice weed in the U.S. and (b) that rice production is more critical to the wellbeing of Colombians than it is to people in the U.S., rice being a staple crop for Colombians. But why allow HR rice to be used in Colombia if the potential for outcrossing is so severe? In the long run, the deleterious results of using HR rice in Colombia might be worse than the long term results of using HR rice in the U.S. if indeed rice is a more basic food for Colombians than for us.
Third, it raises a question about autonomy. Who should decide questions such as those posed above? The individual in charge of the project at the agency that is funding the research? The administrators of that agency? The U.S. government? The Colombian government? An international environmental regulatory committee? The farmers, U.S. or Colombian, who stand to profit or lose from using the technology? The consumers, domestic or international, whose food bills and safety will be affected?
|For Everyone||For the Classroom||For Extension||Activities||Contact Us||Search|
|Office of Biotechnology homepage||Search the Office of Biotechnology homepage|
Published by: Office of Biotechnology, Bioethics Outreach
Ames, Iowa 50011-3260, (515) 294-9818, email@example.com
Questions about the site? E-mail firstname.lastname@example.org
Copyright © 2003, Iowa State University. All rights reserved.
Last Update 06/06/03