Table of Contents

How do agricultural scientists view advanced biotechnology?

If the 20th century belonged to physics, the 21st is likely to belong to biology. Today, basic and applied research in genomics, biotechnology, and genetic engineering is sparking a new scientific revolution. The Human Genome Project is only one aspect of a much larger endeavor to decode and manipulate the genetic makeup of all living matter.

Decoding and manipulating plant and animal genomes has the potential to radically transform agricultural and food production. We have already seen the development and diffusion of disease-, insect-, and drought-resistant crops, as well as more-productive farm animals. Biotechnologists are developing edible vaccines that can be incorporated into fresh fruits and vegetables and are working on a broad range of biopesticides, which lead to reduced use of agrichemicals. Ultimately, bioengineered foods may prevent or cure diseases.

Driving the genomics revolution in agriculture are the large, multinational life science companies such as Novartis, Monsanto, DuPont, and Dow Chemical (1) and the colleges of agriculture in America’s land grant universities. Sometimes working independently and sometimes working together, the private life science companies and the public land grant universities are not only unfolding the fundamental processes of life, but are also applying their findings to a wide range of practical applications. The potential for commercial development of agriculture-based genomics research is presenting large and small private firms with a wealth of commercial opportunities.

Given the imperatives faced by the multinationals to develop and exploit markets for advanced biotechnologies, one might expect private life science companies to speak with one positive voice about the benefits of genomics. Indeed, proponents of capital-intensive, industrially organized, high-yield farming (2, 3) point to the need for agricultural scientists to rise to the challenge of feeding billions more people around the world within the next 50 years. For these advocates of high-tech farming, anything less than a complete embracing of biotechnology represents a dangerous diversion that can lead to reduced crop yields, an increased threat of famine, and ultimately social unrest.

Genomics is clearly becoming a focal point for a broad array of programs and activities in colleges of agriculture. However, previous research on the perspectives and values of agricultural scientists suggests that the academic community may hold multiple perspectives on advanced biotechnologies. Furthermore, the strategic alliances formed between colleges of agriculture and private life science companies have become a point of contention among agricultural scientists (4).

Disciplinary differences are especially important in understanding varying viewpoints held by researchers in colleges of agriculture. Almost 20 years ago, Busch and Lacy noted, “Agricultural research is increasingly fragmented along disciplinary lines. Scientists typically receive all or most of their education within the same disciplines. They rarely subscribe or publish outside disciplinary lines. As each discipline develops a somewhat different vocabulary, cross-disciplinary communication is restricted” (5). Overall, the most important goals for agricultural research are the creation of disciplinary knowledge and the increase of agricultural productivity. Other goals congruent with the land grant mission, such as human nutrition, improving rural levels of living, and community development, are related to a handful of disciplines (e.g., food science, nutrition, and rural sociology).

Two views of agricultural biotechnologies
There are at least two distinct views within the land grant system about advanced agricultural biotechnologies. The predominant view is that the role of the land grant system is to educate the public about all aspects of these emerging technologies. Thus, many land grant universities have organized symposia, developed outreach materials, and established liaisons between the public and the university to address questions and disseminate information about biotechnology research on campus. Biotechnology opponents often express the concern that land grant scientists too often advocate—rather than educate about—these technologies. From their perspective, educational materials dealing with biotechnology indiscriminately promote a particular viewpoint and do not acknowledge the potential social and environmental problems associated with these technologies.

Although many agricultural scientists believe that the benefits to be gained by developing biotechnologies greatly outweigh any potential costs, a second school of thought in the land grant system endorses a more cautious approach to this line of research. Whereas few agricultural scientists call for an outright ban of biotechnology research, some advocate more inquiry into the impacts of advanced agricultural biotechnologies on the environment, food system, structure of agriculture, rural communities, and population health before large investments are made in this line of research.

To address how advanced agricultural biotechnologies are perceived by scientists in America’s land grant universities, data were collected as part of a larger U.S. Department of Agriculture sponsored regional research project (NC-208) titled Impact Analysis and Decision Support Strategies for Agricultural Research. The objective of the larger project was to analyze decision strategies for agricultural biotechnology research funding by state agricultural experiment stations.

A survey of agricultural scientists
In 1995 and 1996, a sample of 1668 agricultural faculty was drawn from a directory of professional workers in state agricultural experiment stations and cooperating institutions maintained by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. A mail survey was administered following procedures outlined in Dillman (6). After removing undeliverable questionnaires, persons not qualified to participate (i.e., nonprofessorial respondents), and refusals, usable questionnaires were received from 1011 individuals for a response rate of 60.6%.

Agricultural scientists in the land grant system believe it is incumbent upon the university to educate the public about advanced biotechnologies. Opponents of biotechnology believe that the university too often promotes a probiotechnology perspective. To capture this dimension among agricultural scientists, I constructed a five-item, summated Education and Promotion Scale (Cronbach’s α = 0.760) (7), based on their views about the role that biotechnology is now playing in land grant colleges of agriculture. Biotechnology refers to “new biotechnologies”—the relatively new genetic and cellular-manipulative technologies such as recombinant DNA, immobilized enzymes, tissue culture, polymerase chain reaction, and protoplast fusion. The respondents were asked to rank their opinions on the following items from 1 (not important and not needed) to 5 (very important and needed right away).

1. More active promotion of the benefits of new biotechnology products by land grant administrators and scientists
2. Greater emphasis by agricultural extension services on farmer education on biotechnology
3. More intensive public educational programs about biotechnology
4. More biotechnology research by land grant colleges of agriculture
5. More emphasis by land grant researchers on biotechnology products that enable farmers to use fewer chemical inputs

Scores for the Education and Promotion Scale ranged from 5, indicating no support for an educational or promotional effort on the part of land grant universities for biotechnology, to 25, indicating an urgent need for education and promotion (mean, 17.16).

In the land grant system, some agricultural scientists favor a “go-slow” approach to the development and dissemination of biotechnologies. Others think that such caution is not warranted. A six-item, summated Precautionary Scale (Cronbach’s α = 0.855) about the role that biotechnology is now playing in land grant colleges of agriculture was constructed. Respondents were asked to rank their opinions from 1 (not important and not needed) to 5 (very important and needed right away) on the following statements.

1. Tougher regulations on environmental release of biotechnology products
2. More research on the environmental consequences of biotechnology
3. More caution about biotechnology research by land grant administrators and scientists about the social, economic, and environmental problems that these technologies might cause
4. More research on the social and economic consequences of biotechnology
5. Legislation to control the social and economic impacts of biotechnology
6. Restrictions on patenting new crop and animal breeds

Scores for this scale ranged from 6, indicating no concern for the impacts and consequences of advanced agricultural biotechnologies, to 30, indicating serious concern (mean, 17.07).

Perhaps more than many other technologies, advanced biotechnologies have fostered linkages between land grant universities and the life science industry. Novartis, for example, recently entered into a $50 million strategic alliance with the University of California, Berkeley. Iowa State University has strong ties to Pioneer; and Monsanto and the medical school at Washington University of St. Louis formed an alliance that has generated about $150 million in basic research money since 1982 (4).

To assess how land grant scientists feel about the linkages between private industry and research at land grant universities, a five-item, summated University and Corporation Linkage Scale (Cronbach’s α = 0.828) was constructed based on responses to the following statement: “In the past few years, increasing attention has been focused on the links between research programs in land grant universities and industry. Respondents were asked to indicate whether they strongly agree (5), agree (4), feel neutral (3), disagree (2), or strongly disagree (1).” The five items were

1. Linkages between public agricultural research institutions and private companies should be strengthened.
2. Increased university–industry linkages are essential in developing new technologies to meet foreign competition.
3. Increased linkages between public agricultural researchers and private firms will enable more rapid transfer of new technology to farmers.
4. Linkages between public agricultural and private firms help make agricultural research more relevant to the needs of farmers.
5. Increased corporate sponsorship of land grant agricultural research is necessary because public research funds are no longer adequate.

Scores for the University and Corporation Linkage Scale ranged from 5, indicating no support for strengthening the ties between private life science companies and universities, to 25, indicating strong support for strengthening these ties (mean, 18.90).

Findings
Descriptive statistics for the three scales show that a wide range of opinions exist among agricultural scientists with respect to advanced agricultural biotechnologies and the linkage between private industry and university research. Whereas there are individuals at both ends of each scale, the overall distribution of responses is normal. This suggests that most agricultural scientists share a core set of beliefs about particular biotechnology issues, as well as university and industry relations.

Average scores on the Education and Promotion, Precautionary, and University and Corporation Linkage scales varied significantly across agricultural disciplines (Table 1). Scientists in biology, biochemistry, and veterinary medicine, for instance, are more likely to feel that land grant universities are not doing enough to promote agricultural biotechnologies. They think that more emphasis should be devoted to promotion and education. On the other hand, social scientists, along with scientists in natural resources, plant sciences, and agronomy, favor a more restrained approach with respect to advocating for agricultural biotechnologies.

Different viewpoints also exist with respect to the social, economic, and environmental consequences of biotechnologies. Again, the social scientists and faculty in natural resources, forestry, and entomology feel that moving ahead rapidly with the development and dissemination of advanced biotechnologies is not warranted until their impacts have been fully considered. At the other end of the spectrum, biologists, biochemists, agronomists, animal scientists, and plant pathologists express less concern about any possible deleterious consequences of advanced biotechnologies.

Finally, social scientists and scientists in natural resources are wary of the forging of tighter bonds between private corporations and land grant universities. On the other hand, faculty in food science, animal science, and veterinary medicine believe that ties between private corporations and universities should be strengthened.

Clearly, there are differences across disciplines in how biotechnologies are viewed. With the exception of agricultural engineering, scientists in all of the other agricultural disciplines hold views on at least some aspects of biotechnology that are significantly different from the norm. Social scientists and natural resource scientists differed significantly from the mean on all three scales, whereas agronomists, animal scientists, biologists, biochemists, and scientists in veterinary medicine expressed statistically significant different views on two scales.

Moving ahead
Advanced agricultural biotechnologies are being developed and disseminated by land grant universities throughout the United States. And biotechnology-related research, teaching, and outreach activities are likely to increase in the future. If agricultural biotechnology is to serve as a focal point for program development, a better understanding of the issues and concerns over biotechnology by agricultural scientists within the land grant system itself is warranted.

A survey of more than 1000 land grant scientists reveals a diverse range of perspectives on biotechnologies. Not only are individual differences apparent, but distinct patterns of opinion also exist among the disciplines. In general, social and natural resource scientists express the most reservations about developing and promoting these technologies. They also share a concern about how tightly universities and corporations should be linked. On the other hand, biological scientists are the most favorably disposed toward moving forward rapidly with a biotechnology agenda.

Advanced agricultural biotechnologies can be seen as simply the next logical step on the conventional or mainstream agriculture path. Cast within the broad sweep of technological change that has transformed agriculture over the past 100 years, biotechnology follows the mechanical revolution in farming that began in the early part of the 20th century and the chemical revolution that took hold after World War II. One challenge facing advocates of agricultural biotechnologies will be to meld these technologies with the environmental and community concerns embodied in the sustainable agriculture movement. Farmers (8), environmentalists (9), and consumers (10) are calling for a more sustainable food and agricultural system. Whether promoters of agricultural biotechnologies can accommodate the concerns raised by these groups remains an open question at this time. I have identified at least some of the points of contention that will have to be addressed as agricultural biotechnologies are developed by scientists in America’s land grant universities.

Acknowledgment
Support for this research was provided in part by funds from the Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station in conjunction with USDA/CSREES Regional Research Projects NC-208 and NE-185.

References

1. Heffernan, W. Consolidation in the Food and Agriculture System. Report to the National Farmers Union; 1999; available at http://nfu.org.
2. Avery, D. T. Saving the Planet with Pesticides and Plastic: The Environmental Triumph of High-Yield Farming. Hudson Institute: Indianapolis, 1995.
3. Urban, T. N. Choices 1991, 6 (4), 4–6.
4. Blumenstyk, G. Chronicle of Higher Education, Dec 11, 1998, p A56.
5. Busch, L.; Lacy, W. B. Agriculture and the Politics of Research; Westview Press: Boulder, CO, 1983.
6. Dillman, D. Mail and Telephone Surveys; Wiley: New York, 1978.
7. www.ats.ucla.edu/l.
8. Kirschenmann, F. In Research in Rural Sociology and Development: Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Communities, Schwarzweller, H. K., Lyson, T. A., Eds.; JAI Press: Greenwich, CT, 1995; Vol. 6, pp 215–225.
9. Buttel, F. H. In Research in Rural Sociology and Development: Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Communities; Schwarzweller, H. K., Lyson, T. A., Eds.; JAI Press: Greenwich, CT, 1995; Vol. 6, pp 1–21.
10. Rifkin, J. Beyond Beef: The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture; Dutton Publishers: New York, 1992.

Thomas Lyson is the Liberty Hyde Bailey Professor of Rural Sociology at Cornell University and Director of the Farming Alternatives Program (Dept. of Rural Sociology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853; 607-255-1684; tal2@cornell.edu). He is a past editor of the journal Rural Sociology and is currently an associate editor for the Journal of Sustainable Agriculture.