"In my laboratory, transformed honeybees with insecticide resistance
are the target of current research. The main role of apiculture in
Japan is pollination. Many strains of honeybee are used as
pollinators in horticulture, such as strawberry production in
greenhouses. Therefore one of the most important characteristics
required in bee breeding is constructing honey-bees strains suitable
for pollination in green-houses." (from "The Current Status of
Transgenic Research Insects" by Kiyoshi Kimura, PhD)
I think we are at a unique point in the history of beekeeping where
we can discuss the potential ramifications of an emerging technology
before it becomes a reality. We were not able to engage in a
discussion over the wisdom of importing African bees to Brazil in the
1950s. Of course, the consensus may have emerged to go forward, since
no one could have foreseen the consequences that Africanization would
have for the American continents. But, now is the time to discuss the
issue of genetically altered honey bees, before they become a reality.
Points raised again and again by those who see little sense in
discussing these matters are 1) the subject is too technical, 2) the
techniques, at least in bees, are not feasible, and 3) it is a moral
issue and therefore too contentious. German Chancellor Gerald
Schroder created the National Ethics Council in early May 2001. "Only
a public that is informed and able to discuss options openly will be
able to make and support decisions on future-related issues such as
the use of biotechnology and genetic engineering. These decisions
cannot be left up to a few specialists or otherwise interested
parties," Schroder said.
As early as 2000, databases were set up to provide genome-mapping
information about pigs, cattle, chickens, and sheep. These maps have
been used to produce commercially available transgenic animals. The
list now includes many more creatures including honey bees. Honey bee
genome maps will initially be used by researchers studying genomics,
but may be utilized to produce transgenic bees for sale. According to
Peter Atkinson, Department of Entomology, University of California,
Riverside: "The past 5 years have witnessed significant advances in
our ability to introduce genes into the genomes of insects of medical
and agricultural importance."
The technical aspects of how this is to be done may be beyond the
understanding of most of us, but the implications for our industry
can be seen by looking at other industries. To their experiences we
must add, however, the knowledge that bees are not isolated and
maladies as well as new genetic material can and do move very
rapidly. It took only a few years for varroa to become widespread in
each country it encountered. The progress of African bees has slowed
somewhat due to climate and other factors, but was very rapid in the
tropics.
As a guideline for discussion, I have consulted the book
"Agricultural Bioethics" (Iowa State University Press, 1990). Writing
in it, Chuck Hassebrook outlines these primary questions that we
should be asking of any research or new technology.
1) What are the forces causing the research to be undertaken?
2) How does the technology affect the balance between the use of
labor and management relative to capital?
3) Will the technology be more conducive to owner operated businesses
or to industrially structured ones where the functions of ownership,
management and labor are divided among different people?
4) Will the technology create barriers to entry due to capital, or
other requirements that cannot be met by most potential beginning
[beekeepers]?
5) How will the technology affect competitive position among
different types and sizes of producers?
Now, to use an example of a new technology, suppose Dr. Kiyoshi
Kimura succeeds in producing a transgenic bee, one that is highly
resistant to pesticides. Perhaps such a bee would be promoted to
enable beekeepers to use new and stronger chemicals against mites and
other pests. How would this affect our industry?
The impact could be similar to that of Roundup Ready corn, or the
bovine growth hormone. Naturally, the makers of such products say
they are working to make better products for farmers, but in reality
they are concerned primarily with making money. Most of these
companies are paying much more attention to the value of their stocks
than to the well-being of farmers.
Obviously, any management technique that requires the repeated
purchase of genetic material is going to be more costly in the short
run, than one that does not. When farmers began to be offered
genetically altered corn, they were required to sign contracts
agreeing not to save seed. How would beekeepers react to committing
to purchase queens on an annual basis and forego raising their own
queens?
A serious concern would be the consequence of large scale adoption of
a particular type of disease or pesticide resistant bee on the
non-users of such a product. Widespread presence of such bees could
in fact engender more virulent mites or other diseases, forcing
producers to either adopt the methods of their neighbors, or get out
of business. This is basically what happened in the case of the
African bees in the Americas. Families that used to have a few hives
in the yard were simply forced to give up beekeeping. Beekeepers were
compelled to adopt the new bee, and the new methods, to survive.
The high cost of modern beekeeping has always been a barrier to
beekeepers in developing countries. Many workers have failed to fully
realize this fact when they have attempted to export beekeeping
technology to poor countries as a means of increasing family income,
for example. And I am talking only about the cost of the hives
themselves. To obtain hives or even lumber to make them, is beyond
the reach of much of the world's population.
In "The Case Against bGH", Gary Comstock writes: "It is too little
appreciated that Amish farmers refused to adopt no-till farming
techniques [in part] because it would mean fewer Amish sons would be
need to be employed in farming". This is simply one example of the
many that could be offered of the adverse impact that has been felt
by small, family-owned farms and businesses.
Closer to home, we have seen the change from beekeeping being
relatively easy to start up and learn, to what it is now: an
extremely challenging and somewhat discouraging occupation. Many of
us get a sinking feeling when we see mites taking over hives in
August, only months after treatment. And beekeepers like myself who
normally work bare-handed have to put on heavy chemical resistant
gloves to protect ourselves not from stings but from the chemicals we
have to use to keep the bees alive.
Add to this the possibility that we will have to buy expensive
patented queens, and constantly monitor for supersedure, lest they
either revert to ineffective parent stock, or turn into some weird
mutation.
"Some warn that genetically modified plants and animals could move
into the wild and breed disruptive traits into local species, similar
to the way African "killer bees" escaped a Brazilian research
facility in 1957 and spread their aggressive traits. Others fear an
opposite scenario: that instead of thriving, the modified plant or
animal could interbreed with its natural cousins in ways that would
destroy the species entirely." (from "Gene-Modified Plants and
Animals Could Wipe Out Other Species, Experts Fear Oversight is Full
of Holes." by Aaron Zitner, Los Angeles Times)
We must confront the difficult issue of values. Frequently scientists
attempt to dodge the question of the value of what they are doing by
saying that science is value-free or amoral. It is not true, of
course, since their choices reflect their values. However, it is
thoroughly clear that even if scientists refuse to address the social
consequences of their actions, society has a right to hold them
accountable for their actions and/or negligence.
Leaving aside the moral questions of tampering with the genetic code
of creatures and the issue of patents on living beings, there still
remains this question of the economic consequences of ever increasing
technological and capital requirements. It is often noted that
computers have made people's jobs easier, but it is less often noted
that computers have eliminated many people's jobs or forced them to
give up their skilled occupation and instead sit in front of a
computer all day.
Beyond the effect on human beings, there are possible profound
effects on biodiversity. Already, many of the original honey bee
races have been destroyed by conventional breeding and wild or feral
colonies have ceased to exist in many areas. Further, developing a
"super-bee" could spell the end of other species of wild bees, such
as Bombus.
--
Peter Borst <[log in to unmask]>
|
