 |
| About Bioline | All Journals | Testimonials | Membership | News |
|
||||||
|
||||||
Electronic Journal of Biotechnology, Vol. 2, No. 3, December, 1999 EDITORIAL Preceptions and Conceptions of Biotechnology Horst W.Doelle,DSc, DSc[h.c.] Chairman International Organization for Biotechnology and Bioengineering (IOBB) Director MIRCEN-Biotechnology, Australia doelle@ozemail.com.au Code Number: ej99013 Since its inception, the term biotechnology has been used and interpreted in many ways, which often causes significant confusion not only in the international arena of schools, universities, commerce and governments, but particularly in many communities. By definition, biotechnology is not a subject, but rather the application of various technologies to scientific achievements in biology. The word 'biotechnology' replaced the well-known term of 'industrial microbiology' in the late 1970s to reflect the many developments in plant and animal sciences. The area of biotechnology therefore now encompasses agricultural, medical, microbial and marine biotechnology. The field of agriculture within this group is subdivided into plant and animal cell technologies. Biotechnology encompasses therefore all areas of biology. It is the explosive development in gene manipulation and DNA recombination which is responsible for the term 'genetical engineering'. The phrase ' genetical engineering' should therefore be regarded rather as a scientific biological term and not an engineering term. A common misunderstanding is that 'genetical engineering' is a separate entity rather than acting as a scientific tool applicable to all biological material making it only a part of biotechnology. During the past two decades, biotechnology has further expanded into socio-economics and the field of sustainability. David del Porto in 1999 established the coefficient of sustainability as The quantity of life/cost of living. This field of socio-economic biotechnology moves away from the purely commercial application into the rural and urban developmental level. Topics have emerged, such as bio-integration, multiproduct development, urban- and farm-level applications to secure farm development and reduce the trend towards urbanisation. This area of biotechnology has increased in popularity by combining new methods of biotechnology. In this context, recognising the increasing suitability of applying biological materials for future sustainability I feel that it is time to take stock and re-evaluate our goals and aims in the field of biotechnology. Should we use our scientific achievements to improve or to change the environment we inherited from the Industrial and Green Revolutions?. It raises the questions whether or not we actually have sufficiently studied and explored the sources of our problems in regard to the gradual destruction of our natural biological cycles, why increasing problems with human health in developing countries still exist despite the enormous expenditure in biotechnology and why the farming communities still have such a low living standard, which results in increasing movement to nearby cities. Are we overemphasising the commercial aspects of one part of biotechnology, gene technology, so that many communities equate genetical engineering with biotechnology and thus resist and question the usefulness of the other areas of biotechnology?. It is not so much the ignorance of the people in the community which causes concern regarding the development of this part of biotechnology, but it may be the companies, whose sole purpose is financial gain and their refusal to label their products and/or the scientist involved protecting his scientific achievement at all cost and not allowing criticism, who cause the problems. One of the best examples s the most recent development of the 'terminator gene', which forces the farmer, who wants to use the improved pest resistant plant species, to buy new seed for every sowing season from the same company. The second reason is the refusal of labelling the products involving genetical engineering. Are we forgetting that it is the democratic right of the consumer to choose and select the product of choice and demand to know the way of production and consequently what they are eating?. There is no doubt in my mind that the field of gene manipulation will help the community in some areas, eg medical biotechnology, but we should also realise and be aware that questionable areas do exist as far as food and natural environment are concerned. We all know that biotechnology will help, but it is also causing much concern regarding health aspects. Pathogens and pathogenicity have undergone significant changes owing to overuse of antibiotics, pesticides and fertilisers and are becoming increasingly resistant to treatment and natural decomposition. This has been enhanced through the use of biotechnological techniques together with global trade and travel, potentially endangering communities throughout the world. The recent report of vancomycin-resistant strains surfacing in the UK and the overproduction of oestrogen by genetically engineered soybeans causing male children to show feminine symptoms in Europe calls for caution. It is therefore not surprising that many communities express concern and question whether we are using scientific achievements for improving health and living standards or we do develop them for financial gains. In neglecting to improve many of the old, but very effective microbial technologies such as anaerobic digestion, composting, silaging, biofuel and the microbial conversion of the so-called wastes into value-added products, an ever increasing sanitation problem, waste accumulation, eutrophication, pollution and soil infertility is created. This in turn results in increases and resurfacing of infectious diseases and starvation in many developing countries. The emergence of socio-economic biotechnology over the past two decades is a very encouraging movement with unfortunately too little support from the scientists and governments compared to the more fashionable gene technology. This part of biotechnology was and is firstly concerned with the regeneration and improvement of soil fertility to help the rural communities increase their health and living standards through diversification of their agricultural crop usage and value-added product formation from agricultural, human and animal wastes. It aims for self-efficiency and increased food production. The urban agricultural network is growing food in urban spaces using urban waste, which represents an important paradigm shift in food production as both intensive food production techniques and improved urban waste treatment technologies develop in parallel. This movement means growing food where it is needed, reduce transport costs and enhance freshness of the food as well as taking urban waste and doing something with it. The nutrients involved become valuable plant and animal food in an integration of agriculture, horticulture, aquaculture, agroforestry and husbandry with sound water and waste management plus enlightened urban planning and regulation. These attempts of bio-integration of various technologies from various scientific disciplines have shown very good success in many developing countries, eg PRChina, Vietnam, Philippines, Namibia etc. In order to foster communication and understanding of biotechnological needs in developed and developing countries, a special type of biotechnology conference was initiated with the help of Unesco, UNEP, ICRO in 1963, called GIAM [Global impact of Applied Microbiology]. In contrast to the existing IBS [International Biotechnology Symposium], GIAM was designed to take place in a developing country. This did occur, and at the 10th and last GIAM conference in 1995 in Denmark the growing gap between developed and developing countries in regard to biotechnological needs was exposed. The lack of continued support from the developed world together with the ever increasing conference costs endangers the information and educational exchange. How can we close this gap ? We have to improve communication and information exchange, so researchers, advisers and consultants learn more of the needs and requirements for teaching and adapting the existing technology rather than only selling and transferring technologies from developed to developing countries. We biotechnologists should make a much greater effort in fostering all areas of biotechnology, which can be used for the benefit of mankind. Raising health and living standards and securing food supply together with improving our natural biological cycles of matter should have first priority. This can be achieved by combining product formation with integrated biological waste management treatment leading to further value-added products, making the exploitation of the vast renewable resources complete. At the same time it would avoid pollution, eutrophication etc using clean technologies. In future we need many different technologies to restore and improve nature for sustainability, of which one of them will be gene technology. It is my most sincere opinion that EJB [Electronic Journal of Biotechnology] will communicate all types of biological technologies now encompassed in what is called biotechnology. Supported by UNESCO / MIRCEN network © 1999 by Universidad Católica de Valparaíso -- Chile |
| |||||||||
