NINA FEDOROFF
Nina Fedoroff (b. 1942) is the Evan Pugh professor emerita at Penn State University. She served as science and technology adviser to the U.S. secretary of state from 2007 to 2010. The following essay originally appeared in the New York Times in December 2015.
The Genetically Engineered Salmon Is a Boon for Consumers and Sustainability
This is great news for consumers and the environment. Wild salmon populations have long been in deep trouble because of overfishing, and open-water cage farming of salmon pollutes coastal waters, propagates fish diseases, and sacrifices a lot of wild-caught fish to be consumed as salmon feed.
The fish is virtually identical to wild salmon, but it is a more sustainable food source, growing faster to maturity.
But just imagine, you’ll soon be able to eat salmon guilt-free. AquaBounty has spent more than 20 years developing and testing this faster-growing salmon that will require less feed to bring it to a marketable size. It can be farmed economically in closed, on-land facilities that recirculate water and don’t dump waste into the sea. Since the fish live in clean, managed water, they don’t get diseases that are spread among caged fish in the sea. And the growing facilities could be closer to markets, cutting shipping costs.
20
All of these elements take pressure off wild salmon and make salmon farming more sustainable.
5 Much of the concern about AquaBounty’s salmon centers around several bits of added DNA, taken from another fish, that let the salmon grow continuously, not just seasonally. That does not make them “unnatural” or dangerous, it just makes them grow to market size on less feed.
We’ve been tinkering with our plants and animals to serve our food needs for somewhere between 10 and 20 thousand years. We created corn, for example. The seed-bearing structure of the original “wild” version, called teosinte, looked very different from the modern-day ear, packed with hundreds of soft, starch-and-protein-filled kernels. And it’s people who developed the tomatoes we eat today. Mother Nature’s are tiny: A pioneering breeder described them in an 1893 grower’s guide as “small, hollow, tough, watery” fruits.
But there’s money (and fame) in being anti-G.M.O. The organic food marketers want to sell their food, which is over-priced because organic farming is inefficient — not because the food’s better — so they tell scare stories about the dangers of G.M.O.s.
There is also no reason to fear that these genetically engineered salmon will escape and destroy wild populations. Only sterile females will be grown for food. And since the fish will be grown in contained facilities on land, escapees can’t survive either.
AquaBounty’s salmon is salmon, plain and simple. I, for one, can’t wait to taste it.
THINKING CRITICALLY Generating Topics
Provide the relevant information for the topic of genetically engineered salmon.
| TOPICS | QUESTIONS | DAVIS | CAVANAUGH | GENETICALLY ENGINEERED SALMON |
|
Definition Categories Descriptions Definitions Explanations |
What is it? | “The Kim Davis case involves one woman’s dissent against the Supreme Court decision of 2015 legalizing gay marriage. The law says X, but Davis draws upon Y.” | “The RLUIPA requires state prisons to provide religious accommodations under the First Amendment, which says X. Cavanaugh asserted his ‘right’ to …” | |
|
Comparison Similarities Differences Analogies Applications |
What is it like or unlike? | “Other cases in which individuals defied the law because of conscience include X, Y, and Z. The Davis case is similar/different because …” | “This case is like other challenges made by the FSM Church; however, since he is a prisoner asking for XYZ, Cavanaugh’s case is different because …” | |
|
Relationship Antecedents Precedents Consequences Outcomes |
What caused it, and what will it cause? | “The issue of gay marriage had been a state’s rights issue but was unevenly applied across states. When the Court legalized it at the federal level, it required all public officials including judges and clerks to abide by the law, yet the result is …” | “Prisoners deserve to exercise their religious freedom, but for most of U.S. history Christianity was the only available option, which violated the establishment clause …” | |
|
Testimony Statistics Maxims Laws Quotations |
What is known or said about it, especially by experts? | “Supreme Court Justice Kennedy asserted in his opinion that the Constitution guarantees X, though Justice Scalia in his dissent said …” | “In American prisons, there are over X number of recognized religious groups, including Satanists and Wiccans. If they can have their rights, then …” |
21
To complete this activity online, click here.
22
Here’s an inner dialogue that you might engage in as you think critically about the question of genetically engineered salmon:
The purpose of genetically engineered salmon is to protect against the ecological effects of overfishing — that seems to be a good thing.
Another purpose is to protect consumers by ensuring that the price of salmon, one of the most commonly eaten fish, will not become so high that few people could afford it.
But other issues are apparent. Should we turn to altering the genes of animals to protect the environment or consumer prices? Are there other solutions, like eating less salmon or regulating overfishing?
Who gains and who loses, and what do they stand to gain or lose, by this FDA approval of genetically modified salmon?
The author says no one should worry about “several bits of DNA added”; but come to think of it, is this modification unethical or dangerous in any way? Is it okay to create a new type of animal by altering genes?
The author attacks anti-GMO activists, saying they’re just after money (and fame — why fame?). Isn’t money (and fame?) also the goal of AquaBounty and other GMO food producers?
Notice how part of the job is analytic, recognizing the elements or complexities of the whole, and part is evaluative, judging the adequacy of all the ideas, one by one. Both tasks require critical thinking in the form of analyzing and evaluating, and those processes themselves require a disciplined imagination.
So far we have jotted down a few thoughts and then immediately given some second thoughts contrary to the first. Be aware that your own counterthoughts might not come to mind right away. For instance, they might not occur until you reread your notes or try to explain the issue to a friend, or until you begin drafting an essay aimed at supporting or undermining the new FDA rules. Most likely, in fact, some good ideas won’t occur until a second or third or fourth draft.
Here are some further thoughts on the genetically modified salmon. We list them more or less as they occurred to us and as we typed them into a computer — not sorted neatly into two groups, pro and con, or evaluated as you should do in further critical thinking of your own. Of course, a later step would be to organize the material into a useful pattern. As you read, try writing your responses in the margin.
According to one article, the FDA is not requiring companies to label the salmon as genetically engineered. Should this information at least be made available to consumers? Maybe their religious, ethical, or personal preferences would be not to eat modified fish species. If the fish were properly labeled and people knew of any risks associated with eating it, they could avoid it if they wished.
Are there any animal rights issues at stake here? Is it okay to breed “only sterile females”? Critics say that scientists shouldn’t create new kinds of animals. Is this even what AquaBounty is doing?
The author says we shouldn’t worry about these fish breeding with other salmon, but is she understating the risks? I hadn’t thought of the possibility, but clearly someone has. Is there an actual risk of threatening the natural species? If there was really zero risk, why are they bothering to breed only sterile females?
23
Maybe the FDA shouldn’t have approved genetically modified salmon for food. If we start with the salmon, where will it end? What other foods are being reviewed for similar kinds of farming? Is this really the same as the development of corn and other vegetables, as the author suggests — or is animal life something different?
A CHECKLIST FOR CRITICAL THINKING
Attitudes:
Does my thinking show imaginative open-mindedness and intellectual curiosity?
Am I willing to examine my assumptions?
Am I willing to entertain new ideas — both those that I encounter while reading and those that come to mind while writing?
Am I willing to exert myself — for instance, to do research — to acquire information and to evaluate evidence?
Skills:
Can I summarize an argument accurately?
Can I evaluate assumptions, evidence, and inferences?
Can I present my ideas effectively — for instance, by organizing and by writing in a manner appropriate to my imagined audience?
Doubtless there is much that we haven’t asked or thought about, but we hope you’ll agree that the issue deserves careful thought, given that the availability of genetically modified food animals has serious implications for the environment and the future of food production.
If you worked for the FDA and were part of this decision, you would have to think about these questions and issues. As a thought experiment, imagine you had to contribute to the decision about approving these fish. Try to put your tentative views into writing.
Note that you would want to get answers to questions such as the following:
What sort of evidence exists about the safety of genetically engineered salmon? Who has studied it?
What do biologists and bioethicists say about the genetically engineered salmon?
What kind of people and organizations oppose the approval of this genetically engineered salmon, and what are their primary critiques?
Some of these questions require you to do research on the topic. Some raise issues of fact, and relevant evidence probably is available. In order to reach a conclusion in which you have confidence, you’ll have to do some research to find out what the facts — the objective data — are. Merely explaining your position without giving the evidence will not be convincing.
Even without doing any research, however, you might want to look over the pros and cons, perhaps adding some new thoughts or modifying or even rejecting (for reasons that you can specify) some of those already given. If you do think further about this issue (and we hope that you will), notice an interesting point about your own thinking: It probably isn’t linear (moving in a straight line from A to B to C) but recursive, moving from A to C and back to B or starting over at C and then back to A and B. By zigging and zagging almost despite yourself, you’ll reach a conclusion that may finally seem correct. In retrospect, it might seem obvious; now you can chart a nice line from A to B to C — but that probably wasn’t at all evident at the start.