While nobody suggests that the field of synthetic biology should proceed without regulations, history has shown that they can produce consequences nobody really wants. “Strict regulation doesn’t accomplish its goals,” Carlson told me. “It’s not an exact analogy, but look at Prohibition. What happened when government restricted the production and sale of alcohol? Crime rose dramatically. It became organized and powerful. Legitimate manufacturers could not sell alcohol, but it was easy to make in a garage—or a warehouse.”
In 2002, the U.S. government began an intense effort to curtail the sale and production of methamphetamine. Before they did, the drug had been manufactured in many mom-and-pop labs throughout the country. Today it’s mostly made on the black market; the laboratories have been centralized and the Drug Enforcement Administration says candidly that they know less about methamphetamine production than they did before. “The black market is getting blacker,” Carlson said. “Crystal meth use is still rising, and all this despite restrictions.” That doesn’t mean strict control would ensure the same fate for synthetic biology. But it would be hard to see why it wouldn’t.
The most promising technologies always present the biggest dangers. That’s scary, but turning our backs on this opportunity would be scarier still. Many people suggest we do just that, though. Bill Joy, who founded Sun Microsystems, has frequently called for restrictions on the use of technology. “It is even possible that self-replication may be more fundamental than we thought, and hence harder—or even impossible—to control,” he wrote in an essay for Wired magazine called “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us.” “The only realistic alternative I see is relinquishment: to limit development of the technologies that are too dangerous by limiting our pursuit of certain kinds of knowledge.”
Limit the pursuit of knowledge? When has that worked? Whom should we prevent from having information? And who would be the guardian of those new tools we consider too powerful to use? It would make more sense to do the opposite. Accelerate the development of technology and open it to more people and educate them to its purpose. Anything less would be Luddism. To follow Bill Joy’s suggestion is to force a preventive lobotomy on the world. If Carlson is right—and I am sure that he is—the results would be simple to predict: power would flow directly into the hands of the people least likely to use it wisely, because fear and denialism are capable of producing no other result. This is a chance to embrace synthetic biology, and to end denialism.
To succeed we will have to stop conflating ideas and actions. There is no government conspiracy to kill American children with vaccines. I know that, and not because I believe blindly in our government or trust authority to tell me the truth. I don’t. I know it because I believe in facts. Experts chosen to represent a specific point of view are cheerleaders, not scientists. And people who rely on them are denialists. No matter what happens on this planet—even if genetically engineered foods continue to feed us for centuries—there will be those who say the theoretical dangers outweigh the nourishment they can provide for billions of people. Impossible expectations are really just an excuse to seek comfort in lies. For all our fancy medical technology, Americans are no healthier and live no longer than citizens of countries that spend a fraction as much on health care. That can only change if alternatives are based on scientifically verifiable fact.
For synthetic biology to succeed we will also need an education system that encourages skepticism (and once again encourages the study of science). In 2008, students in Singapore, China, Japan, and Hong Kong (which was counted independently) all performed better on a standard international science exam, Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, than American students. The U.S. scores have remained stagnant since 1995, the first year the examination was administered. Adults are even less scientifically literate. Early in 2009, the results of a California Academy of Sciences poll that was conducted throughout the nation revealed that only 53 percent of American adults know how long it takes for the earth to revolve around the sun, and a slightly larger number—59 percent—are aware that dinosaurs and humans never lived at the same time.
Synthetic biologists will have to overcome this ignorance and the denialism it breeds. To begin with, why not convene a new, more comprehensive version of the Asilomar Conference, tailored to the digital age and broadcast to all Americans? It wouldn’t solve every problem or answer every question—and we would need many conversations, not one. But I can think of no better way for President Obama to begin to return science to its rightful place in our society. And he ought to lead that conversation through digital town meetings that address both the prospects and perils of this new discipline.
There would be no more effective way to vanquish denialism, or help people adjust to a world that, as Drew Endy put it, is surfing the exponential. It is not enough simply to tell people to go back to school and learn about synthetic biology, or for that matter, about how vaccines or vitamins or genomics work. Optimism only prevails when people are engaged and excited. Why should we bother? Not to make E. coli smell like chewing gum or fish glow in vibrant colors. Our planet is in danger, and the surest way to solve the problem—and we can solve the problem—is to teach nature how to do it.
The hydrocarbons we burn for fuel are really nothing more than concentrated sunlight that has been collected by leaves and trees. Organic matter rots, bacteria break it down, and it moves underground, where, after millions of years of pressure, it turns into oil and coal. At that point, we go dig it up—at huge expense and with disastrous environmental consequences. Across the globe, on land and sea, we sink wells and lay pipe to ferry our energy to giant refineries. That has been the industrial model of development, and it worked for nearly two centuries.
It won’t work any longer, though, and we need to stop it.
The Industrial Age is in decline, eventually to be replaced by an era of biological engineering. That won’t happen easily (or overnight), and it will never provide a magic solution to our problems. But what worked for artemisinin can work for many of the products we need in order to survive as a species. “We are going to start doing the same thing with bacteria that we do with pets,” the genomic futurist Juan Enriquez said, describing our transition from a world that relied on machines to one that relies on biology. “A housepet is a domesticated parasite. . . . It has evolved to have an interaction with human beings. The same thing with corn”—a crop that didn’t exist until we created it. “That same thing is going to start happening with energy. We are going to domesticate bacteria to process stuff inside a closed reactor to produce energy in a far more clean and efficient manner. This is just the beginning stage of being able to program life.”
It is also the beginning of a new and genuinely natural environmental movement—one that doesn’t fear what science can accomplish, but only what we might do to prevent it.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I have been lucky with editors throughout my career, but never more so than during my decade at the New Yorker. For much of that time I have worked with John Bennet, who, like all of the great ones, combines deft literary talent with unique psychiatric skills. I could not have made my way toward this book without his guidance. Among the many people at the magazine (past and present) who have also helped me I want to thank: Dorothy Wickenden, Henry Finder, Jeff Frank, Ann Goldstein, Elizabeth Pearson-Griffiths, Elizabeth Kolbert, Pam McCarthy, Sarah Larson, Julia Ioffe, Ame lia Lester, Lauren Porcaro and Alexa Cassanos.
Several friends and colleagues read early portions of the book, and a few even waded through all of it. Naturally, my sins (and even my opinions) are not theirs; but the book would have been immeasurably weaker without them. In particular, I would like to thank Daniel Zalewski and Meghan O’Rourke. Somehow, they each found time to read chapters, and then provide detailed suggestions for how to make them better. My friend Richard Brody read the book as I wrote it, with great enthusiasm but a stern eye for faulty logic and broken sentences. Suzy Hansen served not only a
s an able fact checker, but also as a demanding reader. Any mistakes that survived her attention—or anyone else’s—are my fault completely.
At the Penguin Press, Ann Godoff and Vanessa Mobley embraced the book from the moment I spoke to them about it. My editor, Eamon Dolan, joined the process after it began—but somehow seemed to understand what I was trying to do better than I did. He read thoughtfully, rapidly, and deeply. I don’t know what more a writer could ask. I am also indebted to Nicole Hughes, Tracy Locke, Caroline Garner, and Leigh Butler, who doubles as a longtime friend.
Many friends have heard me drone on about this subject for years—encouraging me all the while. (And also arguing—which I tend to see as the same thing.) For their support and good cheer I would like to thank Gary Kalkut, Esther Fein, Gerry Krovatin, Sarah Lyall, Robert McCrum, Anne McNally, Richard Cohen, John Kalish, Jacob Weisberg, Deborah Needleman, Jacob Lewis, Sergey Brin, Anne Wojcicki and Alessandra Stanley.
When I was a child it often annoyed me that my parents, Howard and Eileen Specter, acted as if I could do anything. As I age, however, I have come to realize there is a role for blind devotion in this world—and I thank them for it profusely. My brother, Jeffrey, and his wife Yaelle, shouldered much family responsibility while I hid behind my laptop, and without that help there would have been no book.
Over the years, I have interviewed many people who have helped me form and refine the ideas in Denialism. It would be impossible to thank them all—and by trying I would only fail. Others, quite sensibly, preferred to remain anonymous. I was aided greatly early in the project by a lengthy discussion with Juan Enriquez—a man who knows denialism when he sees it and has rejected it with singular eloquence. I would also like to thank: Linda Avey, Esteban Gonzalez Burchard, Art Caplan, Rob Carlson, Joe Cerrell, George Church, June Cohen, John Elkington, Drew Endy, Ed Farmer, Tony Fauci, Jay Keasling, C. Everett Koop, Marie McCormick, Brian Naughton, Marion Nestle, Paul Offit, Neil Risch, Paul Saffo, Robert Shapiro, Eric Topol, Kari Stefansson and Eckard Wimmer.
Thousands of words of thanks have already been written on behalf of my friend and agent, Amanda Urban. They are insufficient. She combines intelligence, tenacity, vigor and loyalty - not to mention the occasional touch of fury—in a bundle unlike any other on the planet. Anna Quindlen has been my friend since newspapers used hot type—fortunately for me the friendship outlasted it. Anna, too, read early drafts and provided me with many notes—for which I am more grateful than she could know.
On my first day of work at the Washington Post, nearly twenty-five years ago, I noticed a tall man wandering aimlessly in the aisles, looking a bit like he belonged in another place. That place turned out to be the office of the editor of the New Yorker. David Remnick’s leadership of the magazine has been praised by many others—and I can only add to the chorus. Nearly every Monday, proof of his gift turns up on newsstands and in hundreds of thousands of mailboxes. David is a remarkable editor—but an even better friend. Our conversation—often separated by continents—has lasted many years. He was the earliest and most consistent proponent of this book—and I thank him for that and for everything else. Denialism is dedicated to my daughter, Emma, who at the ripe old age of sixteen manages to teach me something new every day.
NOTES
Most of the information contained in this book comes either from interviews or from the large and constantly growing body of scientific research that addresses the subjects of each chapter. I will put footnotes on my Web site, www.michaelspecter.com.
I thought it might be useful here to point out at least some of the sources I found particularly compelling. Traditional journalists (a category that includes me) tend to deride blogs as so much unedited and contradictory noise. That’s often true; but some of the most insightful science writing in America can be found on blogs these days—and I was lucky to have them at my disposal. Five in particular stand out as well-written, factually precise, and remarkably comprehensive: Aetiology, which focuses on evolution, epidemiology, and the implications of disease (http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/); Respectful Insolence, a medical blog that explains itself at the outset with the thoroughly accurate comment “A statement of fact cannot be insolent” (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/); Science-Based Medicine (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org); Neurodiversity, which is almost certainly the most complete archive of documents related to autism on the Internet (http://www.neurodiversity.com/main.html); and Denialism (http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/). For some reason, I didn’t stumble upon the last of them until late in the process of writing this book—but it’s excellent.
1. Vioxx and the Fear of Science
For a book that addresses the causes of our growing sense of disillusionment with the American medical establishment, I would suggest John Abramson’s Overdosed America: The Broken Promise of American Medicine (HarperPerennial, rev. ed., 2008). There were two congressional hearings on Vioxx. Documents pertaining to the first, held on November 19, 2004, by the Senate Finance Committee, are available at http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/hearing111804.htm. Representative Henry A. Waxman convened hearings in the House on May 5, 2005, which focused on how drugs are marketed in the United States. All testimony and supporting material is available at http://waxman.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=122906. In retrospect, the initial 2001 study by Eric Topol and his colleagues, which appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association, stands out as restrained, well-reasoned, and prescient. Unless you are an AMA member, though, you will have to buy it (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/286/22/2808). “What Have We Learnt from Vioxx?” by Harlan M. Krumholz and several colleagues examines the episode and its impact. The article, published by the British Medical Journal, appeared in January 2007 (www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/334/7585/120).
For two particularly useful discussions of eugenics, I would recommend Daniel J. Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity (Harvard University Press, 1995). To get a sense of how a thoughtful scientist can follow reason and logic out the window (and take large segments of the world with him), there is no better place to go than to Francis Galton’s Hereditary Genius (Prometheus Books, 1869).
2. Vaccines and the Great Denial
For a deeply insightful primer on vaccines, the place to turn is Arthur Allen’s Vaccine: The Controversial Story of Medicine’s Greatest Lifesaver (Norton, 2007). Paul Offit not only invents vaccines, he writes about them with great authority. I am deeply indebted to his 2008 book Autism’s False Prophets: Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure (Columbia University Press). The National Academy of Sciences, through the Institute of Medicine, has released two exhaustive reports on the safety of vaccines: Immunization Safety Review: Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine and Autism (2001), and Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism (2004). Both are available through the NAS Web site ( .http://www nationalacademies.org).
It would be hypocritical of me, in this book above all, to ignore those who reject the scientific consensus. Two places to begin: the National Vaccine Information Center (http://www.nvic.org), and David Kirby’s book Evidence of Harm: Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic: A Medical Controversy (St. Martin’s Press, 2005). Kirby also maintains a robust collection of articles, testimony, and transcripts at http://www.evidenceofharm.com/index.htm.
3. The Organic Fetish
The best book I have ever read about the ways in which genetically engineered and organic food relate to each other and to society is by the husband-and-wife team Pamela Ronald and Raoul Adamchak, Tomorrow’s Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food (Oxford University Press, 2008). Adamchak is an organic farmer and Ronald a plant geneticist. Their knowledge, sophistication, and priorities ought to provide at least some evidence that seemingly irreconcilable differences are not impossible to resolve. (Ronald also maintains a fascinating blog by the same name, http://pamelaronald.blogspot.com.)
Everything Marion Nestle writes is wo
rth reading (usually more than once). I particularly recommend Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health (University of California Press, 2002) and What to Eat (North Point Press, 2006). Denise Caruso runs the Hybrid Vigor Institute. Her call to excess caution seems unwarranted to me, but nobody makes the argument better or more thoroughly: Intervention: Confronting the Real Risks of Genetic Engineering and Life on a Biotech Planet (Hybrid Vigor Press, 2006).
For data on agricultural production, hunger, or development in Africa, I suggest that any interested reader look at the World Bank’s 2008 World Development Report: Agriculture for Development. (The URL for this report is almost comically long. It would be far easier to go to the bank’s general site, www.worldbank.org, and type “2008 world development report” into the search box.) Among the other studies I have found useful: the Pew Charitable Trust 2008 report Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America (http://www.ncifap.org/) and the Rockefeller Foundation’s 2006 study Africa’s Turn: A New Green Revolution for the 21st Century (www.rockfound.org/library/africas_turn.pdf). The annual report of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations always addresses these issues, but never more directly than the 2004 study Agricultural Biotechnology: Meeting the Needs of the Poor? (www .fao.org/es/esa/pdf/sofa_flyer_04_en.pdf). Finally, Louise O. Fresco has written often and revealingly about issues of food security in the developing world. See particularly her report, last updated in 2007, Biomass, Food & Sustainability: Is There a Dilemma? (www.rabobank.com/content/images/Biomass_food_and_sustainability_tcm43-38549.pdf).
Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives Page 24