The special section about agricultural biotechnology in the 16 July issue ("Plant biotechnology: Food and feed," p. 367) seemed to imply that this technology is God's gift to mankind, and that those who believe otherwise are hysterical (such as some of the European countries). But caution is not hysteria.

It is well established that host-pathogen/pest interactions follow a model of a coevolutionary "arms race" (1). That fact is absent from Roger N. Beachy's Editorial (p. 335) and appears to be so elsewhere in the section. The scale of problems that this kind of arms race may present us with is well illustrated by the tale of antibiotics. When penicillin was found, it seemed that we were on the verge of eradicating infectious diseases. Now, half a century later, we have a host of different antibiotics, yet we are at risk of loosing the arms race to multiresistant bacteria. Not to note such experiences or to acknowledge that the arms race will not be a problem in biotechnology systems seems one-sided.

One of the biotechnological strategies being pursued is the introduction into crop plants of genes encoding insecticides. One example was the introduction of Bacillus thuringiensis toxin into cotton plants, a strategy also referred to in Beachy's Editorial. The logic was that because resistance to the toxin is likely to be a recessive trait, dilution of this trait into the population of pests not feeding on the modified crop would at least significantly delay the development of resistance. What appeared to be the case, when the larvae of the pink bollworm moth were fed on the modified cotton plants, was that their development was delayed (2). Consequently, the adult moths were likely to appear later than they would normally, and therefore predominantly mate with one another, rather than with the diluent population, thus causing resistance to arise early rather than late or not at all (3).

If we respect the independence of nations, each should be free to make its own choice. Thus, if the United States decides in favor of genetically modified crops, they should be free to do so. Likewise, if Africa decides to raise modified crops to fight starvation, then that's their choice. However, Europe should similarly be allowed to decide.

We are living in a time when the public trust in science and scientists is at its lowest (4). A major reason for this regrettable turn of events is the commercialization of science (4). We do nothing to better this situation by allowing prestige and money to drive decisions rather than true insight and a striving toward a better future for this planet and the myriads of diverse creatures living on it, including our own kind.

References

1. R. Dawkins and J. R. Krebs, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 205, 489 (1989).
2. Y.-B. Liu et al., Nature 400, 519 (1999).
3. M. J. Crawley, Nature 400, 501 (1999).
4. B. Haerlin and D. Parr, Nature 400, 499 (1999).