What?

DNA-manipulation has proponents as well as opponents. The technology comes down to altering the genetic material that defines what plants and animals are, and designing properties that are considered ideal when viewed from a particular point of view. The debate between proponents and opponents is fiery, on the verge of religious, and a solution does not seem to be on the horizon. But it may be possible to use a bit of knowledge of nature to solve the dillemma.

The big issue that separates the parties is the mixing of manipulated DNA with other, wild or locally optimale races. This risk need not be accepted as an inherent result of genetech. It can be avoided if we set a minimum standard for genetech, to create species that do not mix with any of the species or races that are common in nature or in agriculture.

Why?

Proponents of DNA-technology are mostly constituted of DNA-manipulating companies like Monsanto; such companies argue that the world food supply is improved by genetech, often as an integral part of the same vision that brings us artificial fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides It is being argued that this is a short-term vision only, but one can choose to rely on our ability to solve the problems of the day in a technical way, and being able to continue to do this as time advances. Companies like Monsanto enjoy such scenarios, because it helps them to add value by way of their research, leading to a stronger hold on the food market. When considered from a commercial perspective, such visions can be understood. Governments therefore tend to take such views seriously.

Opponents of DNA-techn are usually frightened. They are afraid of miing locally stable races with other, contaminating genetic material. Afraid that natural balances will be disturbed, and that we will be forced to accept a newly found balance to deal with a new situation. As an example, the many poisons that are being used in cotton agriculture effectively destroy weak predators but leave the stronger ones, which then multiply to set a new standard for what those predators are capable of withstanding. They tend to raise the bar and demand ever-stronger potions from those who develop pesticides.

A few more problems are worth mentioning. Companies like Monsanto are allowed to patent parts of a DNA-strain, rather than a whole strain. When a DNA-manipulated plant propagates with plain races, the patented DNA-parts can end up in a normal farmer's crops, and Monsanto has been known to file suits against such farmers. This makes clear that it is counter-productive to enable patents on parts of DNA-strains.

The two viewpoints on DNA manipulation will probably never find a middle ground, as their motivations differ to strongly (power versus environmental awareness) an both fields are simply too passionate. A pragmatic solution can arise when there is no danger of contamination of older races with the manipulated ones.

All known species in nature have been classified, and provided with a Latin name. For example, Nasturtium comes in a climbing variety Tropaeolum majus and a lower variety Tropaeolum minus. As their Latin first- and lastname do not both match, these varieties (or races) are known not to mix. Had the first- and lastname been the same, then this would have been possible. A race is usually name when it achieves some optimum within a species, such as Tropaeolum majus 'Gourmet Brand Salad Mixture'. This will mingle and propagate with other races of Tropaeolum majus, but never with any race of Tropaeolum minus.

This distinction between races that mingle and species that don't is a general property of genetics, and thus of nature itself. This is why a negro can mate with a latino to produce a child; both parents are from a race of Homo sapiens. This is also why people cannot mate with sheep to produce a wooly sort of person (perhaps not unlike a politician). This distinction can be quite useful to break the predicament around genetech.

Instead of wondering whether the general principe of DNA manipulation should be allowed, we can now focus on the question whether it is acceptable to allow modifications within a race, as any such modifications are bound to seep into existing species, possibly with devastating effects. Instead, it is also possible to demand a certain minimum level of service from DNA manipulating efforts, namely to create a wholly new species. This would mean that it should be proven that no cross-breeding between DNA manipulated species and wild or common agricultural species can occur. It can then be left to nature to select which solutions are sufficiently strong to survive.

This will probably create a situation where genetech species and plain old species co-exist without ever uniting. If both have the strength to survive then they will continue to co-exist; otherwise, a clear winner will arise from this approach.

To summarise the idea: It is not necessary to risk contamination of normal species with DNA-genetech material. Nature itself suggests that we set a minmum standard of creating a new species, not just a new race. Subsequent subjection to naturael selection is probably wise.

How?

The distinction between species is formally manifested as not being able to procreate as a result of trying to mate the two species. In practice, we can infer that two species differ if their Latin name have a different first- and/or lastname.

To know if a manipulated brand of corn can procreate with a wild or cultivated species of corn, formal test procedures can be defined and verified. Under the assumption that genetech always yields a new, hiterto unknown species, it will still be clea what the origins of the new species are, which gives rise to a list of potential cross-breeders. If none of these manage to procreate, it seems that a new species has been created, so the genetics could possible be allowed to leave the laboratory. It will be possible, and manageable to define procedures and monitoring rules, leading to much more overview than currently available.

The minimum effort of creating a new species is intended as a challenge to DNA manipulating companies; it is not intended to anihilate the industry of genetech, because there are no real arguments against introducing new species to a country. The only exception would be an invasive species, but most countries have their mechanisms to deal with that. Most countries have rules to handle such situations, and it seems like a good way of reusing existing law in this new setting.

This approach hardly calls for new legislation. The only new requirement would be to demand that DNA-modified species always form a new species.

Where?

• Information about Genetech from proponents and opponents.
• The high-tech, low-profile company Monsanto is convinced that it takes (their) genetechnology to feed the world, as well as (their) Roundup and artificial fertiliser.