Biotechnology and Ecological Risk

Since the late 1970s, advances in biotechnology have allowed for the unprecedented crossing of genes between species, and over the past decade many of these genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have been released into ecological systems. The environmental release of GMOs has taken place at landscape and test plot scales, predominately involving crop and tree varieties, although livestock and fish species have also been modified and are on the verge of commercialization in some countries. While GMOs mainly offer production benefits, it is largely accepted that biotechnology is still in its infancy and may cause unanticipated ecological risks, which requires further study that may be aided by the holistic discipline of geography.

The terminology regarding biotechnology and risk is controversial and confusing. Industry often claims that biotechnology has existed for millennia and suggests that selective plant breeding is one example of this. More colloquially, the media and public usually equate biotechnology with recombinant DNA and transgenesis, which has created a breakdown in language among stakeholders regarding this technology. Academics have tried to introduce new terminology to differentiate between “traditional” (e.g., selective breeding) and “modern” (e.g., GMO crops) biotechnology, although its uptake has been met with mixed success. Similarly, the term risk is also contested and means different things to different stakeholders. Natural scientists define risk quantitatively as the “probability of harm” and use “risk assessment” to predict and avert potential problems that may be associated with GMOs. Social scientists define risk more broadly and use “risk analysis” to also include people's risk perceptions in the evaluation of biotechnology. Indeed, that the language over biotechnology and risk is in dispute speaks to the larger controversy regarding the promise and peril of the technology itself.