The venue is reminiscent of the name of the famous techno clubs in Berlin. In the Heidelberg district of Bergheim Green party politician Renate Künast and evolutionary biologist Detlef Weigel sat at the beginning of the week, on a stage. Instead of Techno at Berghain, it was in Bergheim, however, technology - genetic engineering in agriculture, to be exact.
"For me, this is the question: how can feed the world?" Künast said - and she also was not in order. Since researchers six years ago, announced the development of the Gene-scissors Crispr-Cas9, the debate between researchers and genetic engineering opponents.
MORE on THE TOPIC of researchers on genetic engineering judgment "As it would allow shotguns, but scalpels ban"The new technology solutions for drought summer like in the year 2018 to be in the course of global warming, according to forecasts, more promises. At the same time, you could help save fertilizer and pesticides. Be so soon grow genetically modified crops on our fields and in the vegetable and fruit shelf in a supermarket?
woman in a Green Jersey
researchers at the Max-Planck-Director Weigel hope. So far, the plants are subject to the EU's strict controls. They have to be labelled as genetically modified, even if the new technology produced plants are not distinguishable from varieties. In the supermarket you will not find it so far.
according to critics like Künast, should remain so. You see genetic engineering as an integral part of a purely Profit-designed agricultural system that creates the wrong incentives and the nature of exploits. Already in the run-up to Weigel had and was a little loud about it on Twitter gang. Weigel Künast called again and again to the dialogue.
2/2
— Weigel Lab (immigrated 1989) (@plant evolution) 17. May 2018,
2) I have offered several times in vain, to explain in a personal conversation, the #genome editing and the relationship to spontaneous mutations. There are many, I would estimate in this area as experts. Here is my E-Mail: weigel@tue.mpg.de. https://t.co/aUcS2HW2wl
On the small stage of the German-American Institute, met with the Green party politician and the genetic engineers are now on each other. The hall was well filled, only a few chairs remained vacant. A woman came in the Green shirt - she wore a green Blazer with yellow lapel flower, was with her allegedly critical attitude, but in the minority.
"As a GMO-friendly audience, I had rarely," said presenter and Journalist Daniel Lingenhöhl, after he had obtained, by a show of hands, a picture of the mood in the audience. In the case of representative surveys, the majority in Germany is in favour of the rule against genetic engineering in agriculture.
caution, patents!
On the small stage of the feared and some perhaps even hoped for a big clash, however, did. Weigel and Künast interrupted each other. Weigel read Künast, even say, if you argued in good policy, manner clean, on topic and on mono-cultures, unfortunate agricultural subsidies and the types of die lamented.
To a lot of "chemistry" will be sprayed on fields, patents are more difficult farmers access to seed and misguided subsidies have led to the exploitation of poor countries, Bahis Siteleri she argued. Weigel listened to everything quiet and agreed with most of the points.
he Also spoke out against patents in connection with plants, which could occur in nature. At the same time, he noted that the Künast-mentioned problems, there were also all without genetic engineering. To prevent patents is a political task. Genetic engineering will not be safer or more harmful than conventional breeding.
Thank you @Renate kuenast @lingenhoehl @DAIHDGermany for a fascinating discussion yesterday. In not a few objectives, there is Consistency, even if we argue about the way. For example, the policy should think more about what can be patented or not patented.
— Weigel Lab (immigrated 1989) (@plant evolution) 30. October 2018
several times he tried to illustrate the possibilities of the new tools, cited studies, explained that gene mutations take place constantly in all organisms, pointed out that already with the old, less accurate genetic engineering-methods of pesticides in savings.
More biodiversity through genetic engineering
The biggest applause he received when he explained that, with the help of genetic engineering, biodiversity in fields and even could be increased.
In the hover in front, to breed with Crispr wheat, in which all the plants the same look, but different gene mutations contained about repel pests. This diversity could prevent the pests learn within a few years, to circumvent the defense mechanism of plants. Thus, the use of pesticides could be reduced.
"wouldn't It be a shame if we take advantage of these opportunities," he said. So loud, the people clapped at the evening only once.
More on the topic of the German Max-Planck-researchers Why this biologist has nothing against genetically modified cropsKünast was, however, always sceptical of the scientific consensus. As a Moderator, and "spectrum"-Journalist Daniel Lingenhöhl not exaggerated to ask whether the strict regulation was a missed opportunity, if the modern genetic engineering, natural Evolution accelerate, Künast said: "I Know if this is really so."
"your whole argument is illogical,"
At the end there was a certain man from the audience, attracted the politician from the Reserve. "If the new genetic engineering methods do not distinguish between varieties, I do not understand the debate," he reported to word and added directed to Künast. "You don't answer the questions, always start again with patents. Your whole argument is illogical."
"In your male logic, perhaps," shot back was a little loud and distracted, this time is very unhappy of the in-kind level. Weigel tried to convey, Künast rejected. She was a free woman in a free country and not of the opinion that you could use genetic engineering so easy. "You can't separate patents and technology," she said.
the debate in the Small served as a good template for public discussion. A clear commitment that genetically modified plants can be just as harmful or harmless, such as new varieties, in General. In the result, the important questions are not discussed in the first place: to what Extent could the technology might actually make sense to use and which conditions would be important.
Date Of Update: 01 November 2018, 07:00
