It is the mid-term tests week! Honestly, I didn't really get a chance to look through all readings because I was busy mugging other modules... BUT NOW IT's OVER :D So I revisited some of the readings and find the articles pretty interesting. This session was a continuation of last week's, focusing on BioBusiness. The difference is that this session is centered on Environmental Life Sciences and Industrial Biotechnology.
The first issue that caught my attention is the possible contamination of the environment due to industrial activities. An example given in class is the industrial contamination of the Love Canal in the US which has caused the increase of cancer rates of citizens living near the Canal and also people who depended on it for a source of water. Eventually, SuperFund was put in place to clean up the canal but like any other initiatives, they resorted to cheap and convenient means to achieve the objectives and ended up sweeping the issue under the carpet, leaving it unresolved. This reminds me of similar incidents that happened in China during industrialization. The longest river in China, the Yangtze river, is "cancerous" with pollution and rapidly dying, threatening drinking water supplies in 186 cities along its banks. Yet, local authorities are not doing much to alleviate the problem and progress is slow. It is unfortunate to know that not everybody has access to safe drinking water from home like us.
Pollution of Yangtze River
However, industrial biotechnology is not all gloomy. The question of concern is : Does BioBusiness bring more benefits than harm? In my opinion, it depends on our integrity and corporate social responsibility. If we do our part in protecting the environment and if companies value their conscience over profit, industrial pollution will not be a problem to BioBusiness. On the bright side, biotechnology such as biofuels provide us with sustainable energy and reduced the emission of greenhouse gases by 29%.
With respect to the question above, Dr Norman Boularg is optimistic about the future of Agribiotechnology, and thinks that it can end world hunger. Transgenic hybrid crops have fed more people on less land, which reduces the environment footprint. Genetically-modified (GM) food also allowed for the production of food with higher nutritional values, such as the Golden Rice. As such, Dr Norman concludes by saying affluent nations can afford to pay more for 'organic' but the poor cannot wait and GM food is their solution to end hunger.
I do agree that GM food can be a solution to hunger issue, but instead of ending hunger, i feel that GM food only alleviates it. Instead, the combined effort of the economy, government and people is necessary to end hunger. One relevant example is the controversial GM food aid from World Food Programme (WFP) to Zimbabwe. Many Zambians have the misconception that GM food harms their health and refuse to accept the aid. To make the situation worse, food aid distribution has been made political- it is selectively given to the supporters of the ruling party, causing a food-for-vote controversy. Evidently, to end the problem on hunger, more needs to be done.
Food aid in Zimbabwe
Moreover, there are barriers of developing biotechnology in developing countries. Do they have the pool of talent necessary for biotechnology? Do they have enough capital outlay to develop such value-added technology? Will they have a comparative advantage to develop biotechnology? Apparently, developing countries still have a long way to go if they want to develop biotechnology. Education and training must be carried out to nurture talents and reduce structural barriers. Government must seek policies to encourage foreign investments. Companies must consider the positive externalities of such developments.
I rate this lesson 8.5/10. LOVE the topic.
HAPPY HOLIDAYS!
No comments:
Post a Comment