Interpretations, Actions, and Implications of Scientific
Progress
SCOTT C. RATZAN
It is clear that Sub-Saharan Africa does not share the 21st century
prosperity we all hope for as traditional and new infectious diseases
kill millions annually. Malaria, measles, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS
condemn people to death. Many who resist the infectious agents survive
only to be in want of food.
One might hope the developed countries with food surplus might be able
to help, and many have tried. Yet, while 20th century scientific advances
have supported medical, technological, and agricultural science, these
have unequal impact. Herein lies the challenge: how can we share success
and diffuse our prosperity to advance humankind?
In particular, as the world’s population is projected to grow
to eight million people by 2030, how can we provide resources to support
their existence without jeopardizing the environment and our livelihood?
Conventional wisdom and progress are at risk as the trends at the cusp
of the millennium continue to show doubt of scientific progress. While
no one would like to see anyone go hungry, the same people that argue
for the impoverished and undernourished have fueled the dialogue to
be ``safe rather than sorry. ’’ This so-called precautionary
principle has led leaders in Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Mozambique to refuse
food aid for their people. In these countries alone, 14 million people
will go hungry in 2002.
In today’s world, where actions and perceptions are louder than
proclamations, decisions are derived from perceptions and public opinion,
rather than public good. For example, the Zambian president recently
asked: ``If Europe has rejected the [genetically modified (GM) crops],
then why should we accept them, just because we are poor?’’
(The policy decision required significant discussion, and at the time
this was written, Zambians were still going hungry.)
Logical arguments show that millions eat these foods daily and flourish
in North America. The leading scientific multilateral bodies, WHO, UN
Food and Agricultural Organization, and World Food Program have weighed
in and reiterated that there was no scientific evidence that there was
any risk to human health by eating these foods.
Nonetheless, the European Union will not import genetically modified
crops. While the public arguments are safety, other unspoken criteria
are involved such as pro-tectionism. While the safety argument is loudest
in the public mindset, the economic argument translates into many third
world countries refusing to accept American food aid with GM crops,
as they will be banned from future export to Europe.
There are many reasons for the doubts of policymakers and the media
who compare hypothetical to ``real’’ risk. Many wear the shroud
of science despite underlying realities. The Mad Cow crisis and other
food scares abound in the media and public psyche.
As we all are in the business of protecting public health, we must
think of the consequences of our actions as they are translated in the
current global environment. In the current famine, it is unconscionabl
e for millions to die for theoretical reasons when individual s could
be saved with the provision of food.
As biotechnological progress offers hope and promise to conquer disease
and enhance the quality of life we must argue for ethical and logical
decision-making at governmental levels.
We must strive for the highest ideal to promote the public good and
attempt to anticipate the consequences of our actions. Education and
communication are key in the 21st century environment where is impractical
and unrealistic for any one decision to be isolated in the global village.
Many of us help shape the interpretation or engage in the subsequent
actions. Regardless, we are all implicated in the consequences.
__________
Scott C. Ratzan, MD is Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Health
Communication: International Perspectives.
