|
|
After considering the advantages of the above, many would likely project BT favourably. On the other hand, there is a growing chorus of critics who warn of unintended results. Let us review some of the holes they have punched and the credibility of these oppositions.
1. Does BT Take Note of the Mandatory Preferences of their Consumers?
A point raised by the author of the article (What the future holds) can be coiled into the above question. He has to realise that at this stage, it is too early to call this a problem. We have every reason to believe that before long, BT would take care of all the preferences of consumers of BT products. It is rather too early to draw conclusions. Let’s wait and see how the cat jumps.
2. Do BT Operations Increase the Rate of Growth Toxins?
The fear expressed by researchers, over the possibility of genetic engineering, sparking off the growth of many natural plant toxins; is only an assumption. No scientific evidence has been give to justify such fears.
3. Does BT Encourage Resistance to Antibiotics?
Many have also feared that BT engineering, with its wide use of marker genes (which can trigger resistance to antibiotic), might contribute to the growing problem of antibiotic resistance.
BT engineers have proved such fears unfounded however; they claim to have genetically scrambled all marker genes before use. This has been a rigid scientific protocol to them.
4. Do BT Products Pose a Threat to Other Organisms?
In 1999, researchers from Cornell University reported that monarch butterfly caterpillars that ate leaves dusted with pollen from genetically modified corn sickened and died. The validity of this study has since been called to question, due to its lack of scientific proof.
Most of the other claims made by anti-BT proponents are like the above; baseless, unconfirmed, belying or still need time to verify their authenticity. This is a great heel of Achilles to their arguments against BT.
The most outstanding claim that BT antagonists have is that biotechnology lacks moral and ethical backing, among them, Prince Charles of England. They reason that transferring genes between utterly-unrelated species, “takes us into the realms that belong to God”.
Well, students of the bible like myself, believe that God is the source of life. As such there is an extent to which humans can go in the tinkering of living genes. Humans are far, far below the line of science or any other endeavour, when compared to their Almighty creator. His ways are unreachable, unsearchable (the bible; Romans 11:33).
If biotechnology does encroach upon “the realms that belong to God”, then out of love and concern for humankind, he can reverse such developments, just as he did thousands of years ago, when Nimrod, an ancient warrior, was crossing the border between God’s purposes and man’s plans (Genesis 11:1-9).
Moreover, there is no real evidence that God disapproves of selective breeding of animals and plants which BT is a part of, something that has helped our planet to sustain the billions of people living on it.
Obviously, the BT world means to improve the lot of mankind, not to cause its degradation. People should therefore receive it with open arms, at least for now. Only time would tell if its brilliant goals would succeed or fail. Time never lies! It is better for us to let biotechnology be. We would gain nothing for pulling it and its unselfish aims to pieces.
Granted, biotechnology cannot solve all of mankind’s pressing problems. Yes, biotechnology is not the final hope of mankind. This view is above board! As we look forward to Gods kingdom, which is the true and final hope of mankind, we can only look to biotechnology and other invincible human efforts, to improve the bane of the human society, wherever they can through, through unselfish, meaningful and unethical schemes!
|
Tags
You must be logged in to add tags.
|
Writer Profile
micmon
This user has not written anything in his panorama profile yet.
|
Comments
You must be a TakingITGlobal member to post a comment. Sign up for free or login.
|
|
