Assignment #2: A more formal essay on genetic engineering and pesticide use.
From the notebook they gave us:
Identify a problem within the context of your major field of study. Provide background information on this problem, i.e. explain how this problem may have surfaced, how it is affecting your current field, what is currently being done regarding the problem, and what should be done in the future. When addressing possible solutions for the future, demonstrate how advances in science and new technology [the title of this chapter--Astral] will aid in finding these solutions. Specifically, focus on these advancements and integrate them into your paper.
There were some other instructions, but they were really boring. Even more boring than these.
Grade: 96% (they didn't like my "sentence construction" and apparently didn't find my "[s]olution relevant to the Science & New Technology System," according to the evaluation sheet)
A major problem in the field of crop sciences that affects not only farmers but also anyone living near farms, or indeed anywhere in the world, is pollution from chemical pesticides. Over 2.5 million tons of chemicals were applied to fields worldwide in 1990, giving pesticide manufacturers $19 billion. The United States alone uses 820 million pounds of chemical pesticides a year--over three pounds per citizen. The vast majority of these chemicals end up in streams through run off, in groundwater supplies through leaching, and almost everywhere else but where they're supposed to be--inside the insect or weed they were bought to kill. In some cases, less than 0.1% of the pesticides applied to the field actually reach the pests.
When the chemicals do manage to encounter the crop-endangering pests, another problem is frequently encountered: resistance. Insecticides and herbicides were hardly used on fields until the 1940's, and then the first crude pest-controlling chemicals were applied at 100 pounds per acre. Now, thanks to new developments in technology, pesticides are applied at mere grams per acre . . . mostly because the chemicals are that much more toxic and concentrated. Constant use of these chemicals through the years--especially their misuse, characterized by "dumping" the pesticides on the fields without proper scouting or measuring precautions--has not in fact reduced the amount of damage pests have done to fields; instead, it has created insects and weeds that can resist the usual chemicals and in some cases even thrive on them. The "only" recourse of the producers, at least according to their helpful chemical company representatives, is to either try a new formula of pesticides or to just apply more than the old dosage. The offspring of the hardier pests who survive the chemical holocaust raining down on them are soon turned into "pesticide junkies," needing ever-increasing amounts of toxic substances to destroy them. It is only when the cost of buying and applying these pesticides grows too high to turn a profit that the producers stop and take a look at the havoc they've wrought and wonder what else could be done.
"What else can be done" usually involves genetic engineering--the direct manipulation of plant DNA by human beings to alter its physiology and create a faster, stronger, healthier, all-around better plant. Some people object to genetic engineering by claiming it's some kind of unholy mad scientist activity, a new-fangled way to create Frankenstein's soybean that almost certainly requires the selling of one's soul. The reality is that "genetic engineering" of some form or another has been around since the dawn of time. Every time Oog the cave-dweller decided to save seeds from the big, strong plant with the juicy fruit and shiny leaves instead of its smaller, less juicy, less shiny cousin and sow them next season, he was practicing a crude, slower form of genetic manipulation that persists right up through today in the selection and cross-pollination of plants with desirable traits. The "engineering" part only speeds up the process, injecting those desirable traits and their appropriate genes directly into the plant's cells without waiting years for Mother Nature to work them in.
Not surprisingly, one of the first uses of modern genetic engineering producers turned to was crop species that had been made resistant to new chemicals, such as glyphosate, an "environmentally friendly" herbicide with the nasty tendency to wipe out any and all plants it encountered, weeds and crops. With these new genetically altered plants, a producer could dump enough pesticides on his or her fields to wipe out almost every living thing, except the crops. Once again, it has often been economic concerns that have saved the environment from a long, painful poisoning; with herbicide-resistant crops being more expensive than regular plants, many producers can't afford to use too many of them and still buy all those chemicals.
My feelings on the matter are more in tune with a recent trend in genetic engineering, that of creating crops with a "natural insecticide" that kills pests without being sprayed across the land. A prime example of this is Bacillus thuringiensis, a bacterium that crystallizes when eaten by certain insects, killing them in a rather gruesome yet effective manner. The gene for the particular protein responsible for this effect can be removed from the bacteria and inserted into the genetic code of plants such as cotton. When the pest takes a bite out of the plant, it gets the same little surprise it would have gotten had it eaten the gene's original owner. Admittedly, there are some of the same fears about resistance associated with these "natural insecticides" as there are with conventional ones, but at least carcinogenic substances are not seeping into the water supply in the meantime.
I believe that the key to properly managing pests without harming the environment through chemical use involves genetic engineering in at least some part of it. Although we haven't reached a "perfect" solution just yet, biotechnology and genetic engineering hold the most promise out of all our alternatives.
Works Used
Australian Biotechnology Association: Biotechnology in plant agriculture:
more for less
http://www.aba.asn.au/leaf3.html
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #240
http://www.monitor.net/rachel/r240.html
EnviroNews: Environmentally Sound Pest Management
http://www.life.uiuc.edu/iseb/10-95-2.html
ASU's Introduction to Biotechnology
http://photoscience.la.asu.edu/photosyn/courses/BIO_343/lecture/biotech.html