Chemical Education Today
Meeting Report
Presidential Plenary Sessions Report on Three American Chemical Society Presidential Events by Nancy S. Gettys
A marathon of plenary sessions was held at the 219th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society on Sunday March 26, 2000. The first session began at 1:20 p.m. and the third ended at 9:00 p.m., with 30-minute breaks between each session. Enabling Sciences for Biotechnology in the 21st Century Sponsored by the Biotechnology Secretariat, this symposium was cosponsored by the ACS divisions AGFD, AGRO, BIOT, PMSE, and CELL. Sharon P. Shoemaker, Executive Director of the California Institute of Food and Agricultural Research, University of California–Davis presided. George Bruening, Director of the NSF Center for Engineering Plant Resistance Against Pathogens, University of California–Davis, spoke on “Future Contributions of Plant Biotechnology to Crop Improvement”. Bruening’s main point was that people have safely eaten genetically modified (GM) plant foods for decades. He explained that humans have accomplished drastic manipulations of plants for the past 50 years, including crop varieties modified by radiation since 1970 and wide crosses, such as Durum wheat with oats to produce triticali since the 1940s. According to Bruening, concern about the danger of GM plants, that they might increase the incidence of viruses or cancer, are not supported by scientific evidence. Plants modified to allow lower use of herbicides and pesticides reduce contamination of land and water. New plant products with added traits for more efficient growing, extended growing range, and emphasis on quality traits such as oils with extended shelf-life have great economic promise and do not compromise the safety of the food supply. Leroy Hood, President of the Institute of Systems Biology, Seattle, WA, spoke on “Genomics, Protenomics, and Systems Biology”. This was the most technical presentation of the session, and was very well received. Hood explained that the human genome project has resulted in a revolution in biology that involves the emergence of “Systems Biology” in which it is necessary to visualize how individual components operate in the overall system. This process is discovery driven and enriches traditional hypothesis-driven science. High throughput and vast amounts of data discovered rapidly are necessary for systems biology. Technology is providing the tools to acquire, organize, and store data, resulting in a fundamental change in biology. It can be viewed as an information science with growth much like recent growth in computer technology. This will have a profound impact in increasing biological knowledge and in the teaching of biology. “Agricultural Genomics: More Than Food For Thought” was presented by the third speaker, Steve Briggs, President of 684
the Novartis Agricultural Discovery Institute, San Diego, CA. Briggs described the mission of his project: to protect health and the environment using a strategy of development of tools of genomics. He described the problems of population growth and the inability to increase crop yields sufficiently to feed the population. According to Briggs, the major need is to produce more food calories. Other needs are for foods to become preventive medicine by incorporating materials in the food to improve health, and the need to protect the environment by minimizing needs for land and water and by minimizing pesticide use. Briggs believes that biotechnology offers the best hope of solution to these problems. In a talk titled “Agricultural Biotechnology for the 21st Century”, William Hitz, Technical Leader for DuPont Agricultural Products, Wilmington, DE, focussed on the application of biotechnology to a specific agricultural problem. Large numbers of chickens are produced on the Maryland/Delaware peninsula, resulting in large accumulations of manure and thus a serious problem with phosphate pollution. Chickens were typically fed a diet (corn and soybeans) that contains phosphate in the form of phytic acid, which chickens cannot use. All the phosphate from the phytic acid ends up in manure. A possible solution was genetic modification of corn and soybeans to make some of the phosphate they contain digestible by chickens. This removes the need for adding phosphate to the chicken feed and also significantly reduces the amount of phosphate in the manure. This solution is difficult and expensive to implement, however, because of the current storage and distribution mechanisms for grains. The final speaker was Sue Harlander, Vice President for Biotechnology Development and Agricultural Research for the Pillsbury Company, Minneapolis, MN. In her talk, “Branded Food Products: The Face of Food Biotechnology to Consumers”, Harlander gave a brief history of the Pillsbury company and focused on customer acceptance of GM foods and product labeling. According to Harlander, surveys by Pillsbury indicate that consumers are not concerned about GM foods. Most people are probably not aware that 90–95% of processed foods consumed in the United States contain GM corn and/or soy products. Product labels in the U.S. are not required to indicate that the item contains GM foods, as is the case in Europe. Pillsbury and other food companies are concerned that consumers would reject food items that were labeled “Genetically Modified” and also that the testing associated with labeling to determine if any of the product contents were GM would be prohibitively expensive. Laws requiring labeling of GM foods in the U.S. might result in most companies refusing to purchase GM crops, as a few have already done, effectively calling a halt to the development of the technology and all its potential benefits.
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 77 No. 6 June 2000 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
Chemical Education Today
Meeting Report
Photo by Nancy S. Gettys
Panel 1, from left to right, ACS President Daryle Busch, Roy Fuchs (Director of Regulatory Science at Monsanto Company), Dan Charles (Moderator, journalist), Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio, ranking member of the House Committees on Appropriations and Agriculture), Miguel Altieri (Associate Professor of Agroecology, Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management, University of California, Berkeley), and Caren Wilcox (Deputy Undersecretary for Food Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture).
Panel 1: Beyond the Science of Biotechnology: Government Regulation and Consumer Acceptance ACS President Daryle Busch introduced the moderator, Dan Charles, a journalist who was a correspondent for National Public Radio and is currently writing a book on biotechnology. Each participant spoke, and then all were seated together and answered questions from the audience. The first speaker was Roy Fuchs, Director of Regulatory Science at Monsanto Co. Fuchs presented what he characterized as myths about biotechnology and genetically modified crops, followed by what he contended were the facts. Among the myths were that GM products were not tested, are not safe, have no benefits to the consumers, do not reduce pesticide use, and that pollen of Bt corn harms Monarch butterflies. (“Bt Corn” contains a gene from the naturally occurring bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). Corn plants modified to contain a Bt gene produce a protein that is toxic to certain insects.) According to Fuchs, biotechnology products are among the most tested food products and are regulated by FDA, USDA, and EPA, benefits of GM crops include reduced pesticide use and healthier products (rice that produces vitamin A) especially for developing countries, and that Bt corn is harmless to humans and animals. Fuchs said that Bt corn pollen does not affect Monarch butterflies because it is confined to the cornfield while butterflies feed on weeds at the edges of the field. Miguel Altieri, an associate professor of agroecology in the Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management, University of California, Berkeley presented a very different picture. He argued against most of Fuchs’ claims with evidence from independent scientific research (not backed by private funds). He stated that the idea that GM crops were needed to feed the world was a myth, that there is sufficient food for all the people on earth, and that hunger
was a result of inequitable distribution of food. Altieri asked the audience to consider who benefits from GM crops, who loses. He said that those companies who profited by the problems created by chemical-based agriculture are the same companies now profiting by the new biotechnology designed to overcome its problems. There is an ecological problem due to the transfer of genes to wild plant relatives and the introduction of organisms with no evolutionary experience, containing proteins from different species never before combined in nature. Examples of problems include wild oats that have gained the resistance to a virus added to GM oats, and at least six species of weeds that are already resistant to glyphosphate, the active ingredient in Roundup used with “Roundup Ready” soybeans (tolerant of Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup). Entomologists agree that it is only a question of time before insects develop resistance to GM crops with Bt or other insecticide properties. The time requirement for development of resistance is shortened by the practice of planting only one type of crop in a field. Altieri added that in many cases the genetic modifications are ineffective or unnecessary. Bt cotton, for example, does not protect against the boll weevil, the most important pest in the southern U.S. or against the dominant pests in China where Bt cotton has been planted extensively. In addition, the Bt proteins persist in the soil for over 200 days where their effect on beneficial soil organisms is unknown. More cost effective alternatives for dealing with weeds and insects include crop rotation and intercropping. Altieri presented data showing that GM crops do not increase yields and stated that there is no evidence that traditional cultures will accept modified foods, such as yellow rice containing vitamin A. Altieri stated that the use of GM crops was bad for the United States and potentially much worse for developing countries. Dan Charles introduced Caren Wilcox, Deputy Undersecretary for Food Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture, as a government official who is responsible for maintaining safety of food and agriculture, and, after hearing the arguments, would be asked to reconcile these points of view. Wilcox began by saying she is not responsible for plant food safety, that responsibility rests in other agencies. She regulates meat and poultry products. Wilcox explained that the United States has 100 year regulation of food and shorter history of environmental protections. Laws passed in 1906 instituted our risk-based system of analysis and regulation. Consumers trust this protection, but trust is fragile, and must be maintained by an open, transparent system. The framework for regulation of biotechnology has been in place for ten years. It is risk based, and its underlying principles are transparency, predictability, and ability to evolve with new technologies. Biotech products became available commercially in the 1990s. Approximately 40 varieties of plants are approved, including corn, soybeans, and cotton. There are no known cases of harm to humans from development and use of these plants. Ongoing inquiries and tests continue with much public involvement. Europe does not have a system similar to ours and consumers there are very frightened of biotechnology. In the U.S. consumer surveys show a low level of concern about the relatively simple products now avail-
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 77 No. 6 June 2000 • Journal of Chemical Education
685
Chemical Education Today
Meeting Report ence and Technology Policy; for education, Ron Breslow, Columbia University chemistry professor and former president of the American Chemical Society; and for the media, David Perlman, Science Editor, San Francisco Chronicle. The panelists pointed out that science in the 21st century faces these problems: there is little private funding for science education in the United States. Graduate research is funded almost entirely by the federal government. Industry was called upon to support science education through research grants and graduate fellowships and to realize that basic research is vital to its interests. The U.S. government has no coherent policy on science and technology. Health sciences are much better funded than physical sciences even though our economy is driven by technology rooted in the physical sciences, mathematics, and engineering. Media coverage of science is poor. Chemistry and chemicals are still tied to environmental degradation although the industry as made great improvements. Fewer students are seeking degrees, especially advanced degrees in chemistry. Many graduate schools depend on foreign students. As population demographics change, the traditional pool for recruitment, white males, is declining. To meet the need for scientists, students will have to be recruited from minority groups and women. Ron Breslow added that there are many jobs and opportunities for chemists, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry. He added that a major change is needed in motivation of students, from attaining personal rewards to personal satisfaction. Students must be aware that their country needs them and act from patriotic and humanitarian concerns. Breslow also believes that we need to change the way that we teach chemistry, not treating all introductory students as if they would go on to earn a Ph. D. We must provide a broader education and need the support of parents and business to accomplish this. Photo by Nancy S. Gettys
able and widely consumed. Markets are developing rapidly in the third world, particularly in China, where modified animals may already be available. In the U.S. genetically modified animals are used only in research and are not part of the food supply. Based on 25 years of experience, Wilcox thinks that the result will depend on how the industries developing the products choose to communicate about them to respond to regulation, and to interact with the ultimate consumers. She hopes that, for sake of incredible developments in science and the food supply, wise choices will be made and consumers will develop confidence in the products. Marcy Kaptur, U.S. Congressional Representative from Ohio and ranking member of the House Committees on Appropriations and Agriculture, was the final speaker. She sees biotechnology as a very important, high priority issue to congress. Kaptur is concerned about who controls the knowledge, and who should control it. She explained that her oath is to uphold the public interest, and her doubts are based on what we do not know about the technology and its long term consequences. Kaptur would like to know more about the differences between traditional breeding and crossing of plants and biotechnology that allows much more specific and rapid modifications. She expressed concern about releasing modified species into nature. Other such experiences with nonnative species such as the introduction of kudzu to the southern United States and the accidental introduction of insects such as the gypsy moth have had serious negative consequences. If science is so smart, she wondered, how did we end up with these results? She asked if we know what we are doing with this powerful technology. In the case of nuclear power, we have created a technology that involves wastes and dangers we cannot handle. Will our system be able to deal with potential problems of biotechnology released into nature? In her travels in Europe, Kaptur found that people there are “scared out of their minds” of biotechnology. The U.S. has lost $200 million in annual corn sales due to the European Union’s regulations of biotech. Some large food companies in the United States appear to have made a decision not to use biotech foods. Kaptur urged scientists to contact our members of congress and to share what we know with those who have enormous responsibility. The very brief question and answer session focused on differences between the U.S. and European regulatory systems and the question of product labeling. Panel 2: Chemistry in the 21st Century: The Partnership between Education, Industry, the Media, and Science Policy ACS President Daryle Busch presided over the final panel discussion. Again the format was that each panel member spoke briefly and then the group answered questions from the audience. The panelists were, for industry Mary Good, President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and former Undersecretary of Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce; for policy (government) Arthur Bienenstock, Associate Director of Science, White House Office of Sci686
Panel 2, from left to right, Ron Breslow (Chemistry Professor, Columbia University), Mary Good (President AAAS and former Undersecretary of Technology, U.S. Department of Technology), ACS President Daryle Busch, David Perlman (Science Editor, San Francisco Chronicle), and Arthur Bienenstock (Associate Director of Science, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy).
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 77 No. 6 June 2000 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
