Comments on the law

Russians say goodbye to genetic engineering

Alexey Aleksenko, "Snob"

When Alexander Zinoviev published the book "Gaping Heights" in 1976, this title looked like a damn witty pun. Four decades later, finding oneself in the vanguard of degradation has become as familiar to the inhabitants of the Russian Federation as it is unfunny. Therefore, the sensational news about the complete ban of GMOs on 1/8 of the land resonates somehow sluggishly.

And, of course, we would like to add resonance, but something has broken in the soul too: whether you want it or not, but the soul is a social category and decomposes in parallel with society. There is no ringing paradox hidden behind our cheek for the reader to read it and gasp: "What cretins!" But circumstances oblige you to somehow comment on the news.

A lot has been written about the harmfulness and usefulness of GMOs, including on our pages. When the notorious law was just being introduced for discussion, we responded to it with a note where we briefly talked about the main points. Now let us recall only three important points.

1. The law prohibits the cultivation of genetically modified plants and animals (for example, potatoes resistant to the Colorado potato beetle) in Russia. At the same time, its wording is quite streamlined in terms of the import and sale of products made on the basis of GMOs. Thus, if someone was worried about how we could abandon all soy products (3/4 of this crop in the world is genetically modified) or, for example, papaya juice, do not worry: the Russian authorities, taught by their own bitter experience, leave loopholes to even the loudest legislative act it did not lead to an immediate paralysis of the economy. And I would act gradually.

2. The law does not speak about "genetically modified organisms", but specifically stipulates that it is only about plants and animals. An interesting question: do people fall under it? Is it possible to raise children who have undergone gene therapy in Russia? This is, of course, a rhetorical question: of course, children should be raised somewhere else. By the way, Olga Goldfarb recently told us about the experiments on gene therapy in the USA, and we read and thought: "That's what's going on in the world." But, I repeat, due to the lack of gene therapy research in Russia, this is more of an idle game of the mind.

Another question is more interesting: genetically modified microorganisms (bacteria, fungi, yeast) certainly do not fall under the law. In principle, people who believe that GMOs are harmful, nothing prevents them from thinking that bacteria are an invention of atheists: seven troubles are one answer. However, it should be cautiously noted that microorganisms were historically the first and are still the main object of genetic engineering manipulations. It is almost impossible to prevent their leakage into the environment (unlike the mythical "cross-pollination" involving GM plants, which either someone once saw or imagined). We regret to inform ignorant obscurantists: they'll still swallow the genetically modified monster, it's only a matter of time. This may be, for example, brewer's yeast, or a beta–galactosidase-producing fungus that makes whey more edible for calves, or even – if you're lucky – a human insulin–producing bacterium that escaped from the plant. Genetically modified organisms have already surrounded you from all sides, you are doomed.

The good news is that 10 million Russian diabetics will not be left without insulin (yes, all human insulin is produced by GMOs). Otherwise, we would have to go back to the middle of the twentieth century and replace human insulin with pork ("Please tell me, I won't become a pig from this? Hee-hee!"). The bad news is that there is essentially no insulin production in Russia, insulin is imported (see point 1). Yes, yes, we still remember how someone instructed someone to launch something by 2016, but for some reason it is not being launched yet.

And here we smoothly move on to the third point.

3. The law surprisingly does not prohibit the cultivation of GMOs for research purposes at all. The surprising thing here is this: why explore something that is not there? Since Soviet times, we have somehow got used to the fact that in any scientific research there is a symbolic section about "implementation". And in the world scientific practice, it is not symbolic at all: in the application for a scientific grant, it is absolutely necessary to write exactly what benefits humanity should expect from the planned work. Meanwhile, our law directly suggests investigating something that has no practical value. We'll make genetically engineered varieties and put them in storage under seven locks. We will raise goats that give lactoferrin milk, but carefully make sure that not a drop of that milk does not get to the kids. How to explain it?

One explanation: the authors of the law simply have a bad idea of how science functions. Perhaps it seems to them that scientists receive food rations and, in gratitude for this, they move progress as best they can. They make discoveries and dump them in a box so that the responsible uncles from Rostechnologies can then rummage there someday. Of course, this is partly true: for many, many years, Russian molecular biology and genetic engineering has not generated anything that would be seriously in demand by the economy of its country. But the annoying atavism that requires scientists to think about the practical application of their work, at least theoretically, still exists. And of course, the adoption of our wonderful law means the end of research on genetic engineering of plants and animals.

The authors of these studies are expected in other countries of the world, they will not be lost. The most incompetent will join the state control bodies: run around the fields with a PCR machine and make sure that grandma does not let the phytophthora-resistant potatoes from Europe or the Egyptian bulba, armed to fight the moth, which we do not even have. But in general, it seems to me that genetic engineering of plants and animals in Russia can sum up its short and not very fruitful existence. I express my condolences to my former colleagues who devoted themselves to this field of activity.

But we have another explanation. Perhaps the legislator himself understands perfectly well: sooner or later the fog will dissipate, the genetically engineered turnip will be planted in the Russian fields, and here all the achievements of our biologists will appear from the storages to the envy of the West: "Do you think we are behind you for centuries? And here it is not! We were pretending! The belief of the Russian statehood in its historical doom, of course, has every reason. But still, it seems that this is the first time when it is recorded in the official legislative act of the country.

Let's hope that this second explanation turns out to be the right one. Genetic engineering science will continue to receive funding and will safely survive until the day when the status of the world leader of intellectual degradation and obscurantism will no longer seem honorable to my compatriots. I'd like to make it to this day, too. But there are still few encouraging signs.

In fairness, we note that the point of view of the opponents of GMOs, freed from the most ignorant manifestations of obscurantism, is presented in an excellent note Boris Akimov. In our opinion, it boils down to the fact that modern technology means the end of the patriarchal economy, and I'll be damned if there is a sensation in this. But perhaps the reader will find something more in this note.

Portal "Eternal youth" http://vechnayamolodost.ru  29.06.2016