In 1689, Marcello Malphigi, the father of comparative anatomy, used an early microscope to discover capillaries and confirm William Harvey’s theory of the circulatory system.   Like Galileo, Malphigi was seen as undermining accepted notions of man’s nature and, therefore, of the contemporary moral order. He was indicted and tried by an eclessiastical court.

 I recount these historical incidents merely to make the point that the frontiers of science and technology can be rancorous and inhospitable territory.  Society does not always embrace new science, especially where it challenges conventionally-held views.  Broad public acceptance of novel technology requires public understanding of the technology itself and, often, an awakening to, and eagerness for, its benefits.

 Today we are again at the frontiers of science with the advent of biotechnology.  Genetics have advanced with new mapping and transfer technologies. Improvements in plant varieties no longer require the cumbersome processes of numerous and multi-generational cross-breeding, sorting and selecting. Scientists can now move the single gene associated with a particular attribute from one organism to another.

 Biotechnology would seem, in its ingenuity and logic, to hold enormous promise in terms of the potential range of applications to improve the human condition, in greatly increased efficiencies, and in greatly lowering risks.  However, the technology is complex and not yet well understood by the public. Consequently, people are expressing concerns whether this technology presents any health or environmental risks that need be addressed, or has the potential to create risks that cannot be presently discerned. Already the public discussion has become uselessly shrill and divisive.  This is particularly true in Europe where biotechnology has become a favored whipping boy of the tabloid press and where a reasoned discussion of the issue has become virtually impossible.

 Although the public is now just becoming aware of biotechnology, for some time now there have been products of this technology in the marketplace, both here and in Europe, that provide great public benefit.  Increasingly, biotechnology is being used to develop new medicines and therapies to address serious illnesses.  Europeans have perceive the tremendous benefits of these new medicinal products and are using them.  Medicinal applications of biotechnology are well accepted in Europe as beneficial and desirable.

 For this reason, the contentious public debate in Europe over the use of biotechnology in agriculture has been particularly bewildering. There has been an outcry against biotechnology in agriculture among some sectors of  European society to the extent that the current approval process

–  MORE –
 in the European Union has virtually ground to a halt.  While I was in Europe this summer, I spoke with government leaders there about the European reaction to biotechnology in agriculture.  The opposition, it appears, arises not so much from scientific evidence of risk as it does from a cultural aversion to the idea of biotechnology and food.

   The reason for this is, perhaps, that while Europeans have perceived direct personal benefits from the medicinal applications, they have not yet been convinced that similar benefits may accrue from agricultural applications of biotechnology.  The initial agricultural products that have reached the market offer benefits largely in terms of improved efficiencies for farmers or for linkages with specific weed-control applications, benefits that have little current resonance for the average consumer in Europe.

 Negative consumer attitude in Europe -- and the more limited but still important consumer concerns that have emerged recently in this country -- could change rapidly if products of biotechnology brought to the market in the future offered comparable humane benefits.  I need cite only a single example of the potential applications of this technology to illustrate the point.  The health of more than 250 million of the world’s children is currently at risk because of Vitamin A deficiency.  Each year, 500,000 of those children, mostly the very poorest children, go irreparably blind as a result.  I read recently in the journal  Science that researchers believe that they may use biotechnology to fortify basic staple crops like rice, wheat and corn with sufficient Vitamin A to address and substantially reduce the risks these children face.  If such products were to appear on the market today, we might be facing unsatisfiable consumer demand rather than uneasy consumer concern.

 We need to know more, much more, about this new technology, about its potential benefits and its potential risks. That is the purpose of this hearing.   We are blessed in the United States with a wealth of great universities and research institutions where work has been progressing for many years in the area of biotechnology and its applications to agriculture.  We are fortunate that, for this first day of our hearings, leading scientists in this field have come to Washington to provide the Committee, and the public, with basic instruction in this new technology.  These scientists will also tell us of the research that is being conducted in the field, their vision of the possible applications and benefits of biotechnology, and their perceptions of the risks, if any, that may be posed.

 Tomorrow we will continue our education by learning from three federal agencies about the current regulatory regime that applies to biotechnology.  We will also hear from the National Academy of Sciences, the Consumers Union, and representatives of the burgeoning U.S. biotech industry.  Finally, we will hear from representatives of the production, processing and food manufacturing sectors about the new challenges that they face today because of the introduction of products of biotechnology into the marketplace.

 Thus far, the public debate concerning biotechnology in agriculture has been unfortunately contentious, long on opinion and conjecture, and short on fact and logic.  Neither the advocates nor the critics of this new technology, nor government officials here or in Europe have, in my judgment, distinguished themselves in this debate.  The proponents have failed to inform the public sufficiently about this new technology or to convince consumers of the benefits that may accrue from it.  The opponents have voiced concerns and fears without much apparent consideration of the advantages that society might obtain. Government officials have failed to articulate a consistent and principled framework for public discussion and analysis. The public needs and deserves better.

 A hallmark of an enlightened and progressive societies is the ability to engage in informed, logical and balanced public discussion of policy options.    Unfortunately, this has not been the recent tenor of the public debate concerning biotechnology.  I propose that we begin here today.

 The Agriculture Committee will hold another hearing on biotechnology tomorrow, Thursday, October 7, at 9:00 a.m. in SR-328A.