There are some things I would like to add to and comment upon in Jay Lehr's guest commentary from the May 23 Reader. I'll start by simply saying that it's hard to respond to the specific points he brings up in the first half of his article relating to the effects of cranberries, trans fats, DDT, Freon, and others since he simply presents a list of these environmental and health fears and claims they are unfounded without giving any specific reasons why. Dr. Lehr simply lists them all, each with a sentence, and tells us they were all wrong without taking into account any sort of research people have spent their lives working on in these areas.
From the lack of recognition given to such work, it seems as though Dr. Lehr is implying: "What you have said and done was a waste of time; you are simply wrong." Then to tie everything together by a sort of analogy, all environmental and health scares which Dr. Lehr can remember, which we would assume to be many on account of Dr. Lehr's position as a science director, have never "proved to be true."
I assume Dr. Lehr knows what he is talking about; otherwise he would be advocating the very same thing he is trying to get us away from: jumping to conclusions before we have all the facts and sacrificing our objectivity in the name of promoting a certain agenda.
By not really supplying the reader with any real facts except that fears come and go, Dr. Lehr implies that we must go and find the specifics on our own. Then, just as he has done, we will be able to decide on our own what fears are unwarranted.
Or, we could continue applying his method of thinking more broadly and include the fears of atomic bombs during the Cold War as unfounded since none were dropped during that time; our fears of terrorism as unfounded now since there has been no major attack on our country since 2001; and our fears of being without insurance as unfounded because we may not have been sick for a while.
I don't think Dr. Lehr would advocate these ideas, though. They assume a certain sense of God-like invincibility and isolation from the effects of world happenings outside our selves, when we are actually very much dependent and attached to everything that goes on around us. It only takes a moment to reflect and realize the unfathomable train of phenomena that had to happen just be reading this now.
Taking this into account sets us on firmer soil than some sort of personal or group agenda set against others because it recognizes the individual as belonging to the whole of what exists with them and sustains them. That firmer soil is actually realizing our own personal and collective ignorance while respecting that each of us struggle to be as honest as we can from our own vantage point. Even though those struggles may seem contradictory, they are all human struggles.
Dr. Lehr's commentary, along with those he may have in mind as he comments, appears to lack this sense of respect for human ignorance and struggling that can be summed up like this: As we approach the world around us, we are faced with a colossal mystery.
Modern science itself is but a brief testament to this. In its young life of about 500 years, it has gone through several changes of position in regards to what is true about the world. Neither Newton nor Copernicus, two supporting pillars of science, is seen as much of an authority on things today. Newton's optics were based on a very crude atomism which nowhere near approaches the refinement of today's ideas of light as both a physical photon and an energetic wave. Copernicus' solar system looked beautiful with its circular planetary orbits, but they were not even close to the actual paths of the planets.
Whenever we think about scientific ideas, it is good to keep these things in mind. Even today, we are only beginning a detailed investigation with environmental sciences of how the world interacts with itself. Many of these investigations will result in conclusions that will seem quaint to future scientists, but they will also give inspiration and paths of approaching the manifold existence that surrounds us.
Taking just one area Dr. Lehr mentions, genetic manipulation, shows us how we are only beginning to understand this area, and as with all beginnings each of us proceeds a bit differently. Some approach with caution to the point of unwillingness, while others proceed boldly to the point of recklessness. It may be the case that genetically modified food will not cause any immediate harm to humans, but long-term effects may be different.
An example of the long-term effects of a certain practice can be seen in regards to the use of chemical fertilizers in an experiment anyone can do in their own garden. Simply take the seeds from your own garden and plant them the next year. In one area use manure and compost, while in another area use chemical fertilizers. Over the years you will notice a decline in the quality of plants grown from seeds taken from chemical fertilizer to the point where the seeds become infertile, while those grown from seeds taken from manure and compost fertilizer will more than likely see an increase in quality. (See F. C. King's The Compost Gardener or find out in your own garden.) There's no doubt that chemical fertilizer has tremendous short-term effects on yields, but this comes at the expense of other long-term vital aspects of the plants.
Applying this situation to genetic manipulation, we will certainly see short-term benefits. The question is: Will the plants and animals we genetically modify be able to sustain these benefits? There is already research that recognizes unintended effects on genetically modified organisms that make them appear unhealthy to the organism in different ways (Craig Holdrege, In Context, spring 2007). That these will end up being unhealthy on a larger scale is unknown for now.
We are now at a time were we are greedy for knowledge, and we want certainty in our understanding. But, it is this very desire for knowledge and certainty that distorts our view. Some of our thoughts and ideas about nature are harder than rocks and do not allow for the subtle delicacy that comes to life within and around us. For the poet Goethe, our thoughts must be as fluid and mobile as nature itself to gain any worthwhile understanding.
To approach this truth takes a certain humbleness and patience. The humbleness keeps us always open to new understandings, recognizing our understanding is not privileged over others or what we may come upon in the future. Patience keeps us from grabbing hold of an idea too tightly and fanatically spreading it around. Together, the two keep us balanced, pressing us forward while not getting ahead of ourselves.
When it comes to scientific ideas, the facts ought to be presented as cleanly as possible, with the humility and patience that those hearing them will consider them and decide on their own how best to act. Any bias, one way or another, infringes on the integrity of those at which it is aimed; it takes away from their freedom to decide for themselves how they want to act in regards to the facts.
So I suppose my wish is that Dr. Lehr would take the great effort and time to explain, as best he can, what is at the bottom of the issues he lightly glanced over for us so that if we have been misinformed we can correct ourselves and move forward with a more solid understanding of the facts, which is a secure path away from fear.
