Thursday Book: Prophet of doom changes tune
THE BIOTECH CENTURY JEREMY RIFKIN, GOLLANCZ, pounds 16.99
Thursday 24 September 1998
Six years later, genetically engineered tomatoes and soyabeans are on supermarket shelves throughout the world, and many more such products are set to follow. Even the word "Frankenfood" is in retreat; it does not feature in The Biotech Century. But if Rifkin has conceded that battle, has he lost the war? In his latest book, Rifkin claims there is still time for public opinion to shape the "new biotechnology revolution".
"Although the window is rapidly closing, we still have an opportunity to raise some of the tough issues," he avers.
But Rifkin now seems to have adopted a softer tone. He is keen to acknowledge that there are no easy answers; he tells us that it no longer makes sense to be simple-mindedly either for or against a cultural phenomenon as complex as modern genetics.
"Genetic engineering represents our fondest hopes and aspirations as well as our darkest fears and misgivings," he asserts. The biblical themes of both doom and deliverance are never far from the surface. He paints a vivid picture of "a second genesis" coming soon to planet Earth, courtesy of transnational commerce.
Biotechnologies are our "dream tools", he says. They offer the promise of salvation from much human disease and suffering. But will it all turn sour? Rifkin is worried about the patenting of genes and life-forms for commercial profit and about a likely resurgence in the practice of human eugenics.
He envisages the fabrication of human organs from cloned cells or foetuses grown in artificial wombs. Bioinformatics, the marriage of computers and genes in giant databases, "forever alters our reality at the deepest level of human experience," he claims. He points out the risks to animal welfare, to small-scale agriculture and to natural ecosystems, as transgenic plants and animals are created for a variety of ends.
The Biotech Century provides a whirlwind tour of contemporary genetic R&D, and raises a host of legitimate concerns linked to biomedical and agricultural research today. This is an intelligent and surprisingly nuanced commentary on recent developments, albeit from the perspective of a seasoned campaigner.
Rifkin's opponents have long learnt to respect his populist touch. Through his organisation, the Foundation on Economic Trends, based in Washington DC, Rifkin has in recent years mobilised hundreds of women's organisations as well as leading representatives of the major religions to speak out against gene patenting.
But can even a master-lobbyist muster enough grassroots support to prevent the dawn of the Biotech Century?
Rifkin's battle cry is muted by an uneasy tension that runs through the book. He seems torn between two contradictory impulses: to demonstrate the power of genetic technologies to transform our lives, and on the other hand to throw cold water on all the hype coming from scientists and entrepreneurs desperate to attract financial backing. Are we determined by our genes, or is the problem just that we increasingly think we are? Rifkin seems uncertain.
In one storyline, he argues that our "reinvention" of nature and human identity as something fluid and dynamic rather than fixed and static is paving the way for a warm reception for Brave New World genetic technologies. In his view, this mindset makes it easier for us to regard organisms as something we can create or modify. Yet, ironically, it is possible to argue just the opposite. Viewing creatures as constantly evolving entities can help to counter the essentialism of the genetic determinist. As a result, the organism is no longer thought of as something that can be manufactured by tinkering with its genes, but as part of a complex web of natural relationships that develops over time.
Notoriously slippery, such metaphors of nature make unreliable debating tools. Rifkin is on firmer ground when he dissects the commercial interests driving innovation in biotechnology. Yet he seems unable to point to many signs of popular resistance to the current directions of research, nor to offer practical suggestions on how to set in train a "broad and deep" debate over the benefits and risks of the new science.
He is surely right to conclude that the biotech revolution raises fundamental questions about the nature of science, the kinds of new technologies we introduce into the marketplace, and the role of commerce in the intimate affairs of biology. But where do we go from here?
BBC Trust agrees to axe channel from TV in favour of digital moveTV
Final Top Gear reviewTV
FestivalsFive ways to avoid the portable toilets
Jurassic WorldThe results are completely brilliant
Arts & Ents blogs
- 1 Tunisia hotel attack: Locals form 'human shield' to protect hotel from gunman Seifeddine Rezgui
- 2 Russian officials ban yoga because it's too much like a religious cult
- 3 German ethics council calls for incest between siblings to be legalised by Government
- 4 Ginger Pride festival to take place next summer, organisers say 'time of bullying gingers is over'
- 5 Facebook rainbow profile pictures likely being tracked by social network
Glastonbury 2015: The best bits you missed from Lionel Richie and the Dalai Lama to The Libertines' secret set
Glastonbury 2015: The picture of a man crowd surfing in a wheelchair is brilliant, but it wasn't taken at Glastonbury
Fifty Shades of Grey author EL James' Twitter Q&A didn't exactly go as planned
Guillaume Tell gang-rape scene causes uproar at the Royal Opera House
Glastonbury 2015: Shocking scenes of rubbish left strewn across campsite as clean-up begins
The moment a Queen's Guard soldier lost it and drew his gun at annoying tourist
Greece crisis: IMF was pushed around by Angela Merkel and Nicholas Sarkozy – and now it is being humiliated
Greece crisis: The wider lesson is that it’s time to abandon this failed experiment in currencies
'I wish the BBC would stop calling it Islamic State' – David Cameron unleashes frustration at broadcaster
Pentagon accuses Russia of 'playing with fire' over nuclear threats towards Nato
They are neither a 'state' nor 'Islamic': Why we shouldn't call them Isis, Isil or IS