I like science a lot. I am also very interested in how the general public understands science. As we have seen many times, information is not plainly processed like people were blank sheets. Instead, people interpret incoming information based on already held beliefs. So if science tell people something they do not want to hear, there is a tendency to argue against the evidence or simply to avoid the unpleasant information. The debate over global warming can perhaps be seen as an example of this.
Cloning is a relatively new issue that we have to relate to. The science is there; already have dogs, horses, swine, cats, cattle and other species been cloned. How do we deal with the consequences? Scientists and agencies have tried to grapple with this for a few years and recently two major governmental bodies released reports.
After extensively studying the research, the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) conclude that food from cloned animals is safe to eat. FDA released its final document on January 15, 2008. EFSA published a draft report today, January 17.
How do politicians react? Well, for example, the Swedish minister of agriculture Eskil Erlandsson says no to food and milk from cloned livestock. It goes against Swedish ethical principles and we know too little, he argues.
We cannot know - science does not work like that. But we can say that based on the current evidence the tentative conclusion is that food from cloned animals is safe.
Cloning is not a fantastic method that should be embraced uncritically, but I think it is important to weigh the benefits of cloning before the method is dismissed based on what seems to be automatic and fear based attitudes. For example, cloning allows us to breed animals that can resist diseases and to produce animals regardless of how fertile they are.
Lastly, as a side note, there is an interesting contrast between how the two agencies present their reports. FDA tells us How It Is. It is safe. Period. They even have a page that aims to dispel the myths about cloning. EFSA, on the other hand, starts its draft opinion by saying: oh well, this is what we think but do not listen too carefully to us, we are so small and you know the big picture. Here is their opening sentence: “EFSA recognises that the issue of animal cloning raises ethical, moral and other societal issues beyond its remit.” It is not exactly how the FDA comes across.
Recent Comments