What's your value? Defining questions?

Is this debate about changing the genetic make up of plants purely an anthropocentric one? Can we make ethical judgements about what we do to plants and the environment at large based purely on their value to humankind? Do we need to extend the sense of interconnection in the natural environment to the point where humankind becomes not the centre but a part of the picture, where plants, animals, human beings and the wider environment which supports them all have intrinsic value in themselves? But how is their value defined and by whom? Is it really possible to quantify and allow true intrinsic value of anything without any reference to its instrumental value? Does a biocentric approach make it inherently wrong for humans to change the genetic code which defines any other form of life?
Margaret Atkins (2002) makes the point that ‘the choices generated by the holistic approach will be unpredictable . . . . At the very least, all our ordinary intuitions about the value of individual creatures, human and others, will be questioned.’ (p.244). She sees the same risks in a more egalitarian approach, where cooperation might make it possible to ‘respect the needs of all relevant creatures’ but where choices constantly have to be made ‘all of which would harm the interests of some creatures.’ If, as Margaret Atkins suggests, we are trapped by ‘Adam’s dominion’ should we just accept that there are always going to be some losers in any environmental choices that we make and just focus on the winners and losers amongst humankind?

Why worry about plants?

Of the various forms of genetic manipulation, GM farming is sometimes seen as less significant than altering the genes of animals or indeed human. Yet by altering the genes of plants changes are made to the means of satisfying one of the most fundamental human needs – that for food. Such changes to plants also affect the food sources of many animals, both farmed and the wildlife which live on and around them. Further to this when alterations are made to plants, changes can be seen to be being made to the very fibre of the environment. Plants as Reiss and Straughan (1998) note ‘provide the oxygen in the atmosphere and significantly affect the climate’ (p.131). Indeed it is only now that the reality of the threat to the environment through climate change is becoming unavoidable that a clear sense of interconnection within the environment is being rediscovered. (The development and loss of this interconnection is set out by Timothy Gorringe in his book ‘Harvest – Food, Farming and the Churches (2006).)

Beliefs and identity

In a debate which might be characterised by polarised viewpoints, claims and counterclaims of truth and of vested interest it seems to be important to acknowledge right at the beginning my starting point and the baseline views which inform my ethical take on this issue.

Firstly I am not a scientist. O-levels twenty something years ago have given me the barest inkling of the scientific terms and jargon, a far larger awareness of my own ignorance, but on the positive side a lively interest in what motivates a debate which is giving rise to such strong views. As a result this blog will not be about the science of GM farming. Where I venture into this area I will rely on the sources which I will quote and acknowledge. (Where I have misquoted or misunderstood them please let me know – as only that way do we learn.)

Having said what I am not let me now say what I am and where I am coming from. If you have read the ‘About me’ section on the right of this page you will have probably guessed that I am a Christian and a member of the Church of England (hopefully in the future I will be a ‘paid’ as well as a ‘paid up’ member!). I am also, although it frequently seems presumptuous to say it, a theologian. In thinking about what my theology could offer to this subject I am grateful to Celia Deane-Drummond who in her book Theology and Biotechnology, (p. 80, 1997) sets out her three theological premises, ‘belief in the goodness of God, the love of God for all creation and the idea of humankind made in God’s image.’ These three seem to offer a strong personal base line for my own thinking about this issue and I would like to presume to share them. On to this baseline however I would like to add the belief that the natural world is a past and continuing project of God’s creation. This project is now more than at any point being radically affected by our abilities to permanently and fundamentally alter the genetic make up of species. The speed, permanence and far reaching nature of these changes make it inevitable and essential that strong views should be raised and aired by all who will be touched their effects.