“More than 100 Nobel laureates are calling on Greenpeace to end its anti-GMO campaign.”
Headlines like that one sure do catch the eye. The scientists signing the letter urge the environmental organization Greenpeace to drop its opposition to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In particular, they criticize Greenpeace’s efforts to block the development of Golden Rice, a genetically-modified strain of rice that is especially rich in beta carotene. (The hope is that the consumption of Golden Rice will help reduce Vitamin A deficiency and the resulting blindness among children in developing countries.) This is but the latest round in the ongoing battle over GMOs between the scientific community and those environmentalists who warn of any number of risks, often unspecified, posed by the technologies of genetic engineering and enhancement. The scientists say that Greenpeace doesn’t know what it’s talking about. Greenpeace, for its part, isn’t budging.
For us, this controversy raises a more general question: do we believe in science? That, we should emphasize, is a real question. In the United States in particular it has become a burning cultural issue, and not only among members of the Republican party. By belief, we don’t mean the acceptance of a proposition that is beyond demonstrative proof, such as belief in the existence of God. Pretty much everybody “believes” that science exists and that it functions as an important aspect of our civilization. (Even the vast majority of religious fundamentalists who don’t “believe” in the science of climate change will still go to the doctor when they get sick.)[1] Rather, the “belief” (faith?) we’re referring to is akin to the Hebrew emunah (אמונה), which carries the connotation of “trust”: do we trust the findings of science, especially on matters of special cultural sensitivity? To what extent are we ready and willing to place our faith in the conclusions of the scientists, especially when those conclusions challenge our settled convictions… or beliefs? To repeat, that’s a real and practical question for everyone, including modern liberal and progressive folks like us. And the GMO controversy is a precise case in point.
Consider a recent t’shuvah (halakhic opinion) issued by the Responsa Committee of the North American Reform movement’s Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR). (You can find it here, behind the CCAR paywall; if you’re not a CCAR member, befriend a Reform rabbi who will be happy to get you a copy!) The sh’elah (question) is about Golden Rice: does Jewish tradition permit the development of such a product even though it involves the use of recombinant DNA technology that leads to the alteration of the rice genome? The t’shuvah divides the inquiry into two questions: one of law and one of fact. The question of law is whether technologies of genetic modification are permitted under halakhah or whether they violate some specific ritual prohibition (for example, that of כלאים, kilayim, the mixing of “diverse kinds“ of plant and animal species mentioned in Leviticus 19:19). The responsum surveys the classical legal sources and the opinions of halakhists both medieval and modern. It finds that there is indeed a strain of Jewish legal thought that would seem to forbid any action on our part to alter or tamper with ma`aseh b’reishit, the divinely-ordained structure of the universe. Nonetheless, the preponderant halakhic opinion holds that “the prohibition of kilayim does not apply to contemporary techniques of genetic modification.” But if there is no clear Jewish legal prohibition of genetic modification and engineering, we must still contend with the question of fact, the possibility that GMOs could be a source of serious environmental harm. As the responsum notes, we humans are stewards of the world in which we live, religiously obligated to protect nature against the ravages of wanton destruction. The use of genetic modification technologies, even if not forbidden by the Torah, could hardly be justified were they to pose a threat to our future on this planet. But there’s apparently no problem on this score. The responsum, channeling the sentiment of those 100 Nobel laureates, takes note of the “impressive array of scientific organizations” that argue for the safety of GM technologies in general and of Golden Rice in particular. In terms of fact, therefore, as well as of law, there would seem to be no impediment to our support of the development and marketing of Golden Rice.
Yet on the other hand (and don’t we always have an abundance of other hands?), there are some “respected scientific and environmental organizations raising cautions” against GMOs and Golden Rice. And at the critical moment of decision, the Responsa Committee is unwilling to choose between the two sides. In the words of the t’shuvah:
Our reading of the evidence cited above suggests to us that a consensus or “mainstream” viewpoint, supportive of GMO technology in general and of the Golden Rice project in particular, may well be developing among the scientific community. This developing consensus, however, has yet to overcome all (or the preponderance of) reasonable doubt and objections; it has yet to settle firmly the questions of fact. It persuades some but not all of the members of this Committee. Thus, the findings of science do not – yet – determine our response to this sh’elah.
A wishy-washy response? A rabbinical failure to launch? Perhaps, though maybe it’s the chance you take when you ask a committee (rather than a single posek) to issue a halakhic decision. Besides, there’s an obvious reason why the Committee may have failed to arrive at a decisive answer. Rabbis are rabbis, not scientists, which makes them professionally unqualified to render decisions on matters of scientific controversy. Ah, but there’s the rub: is there in fact a scientific controversy here? Check out the footnotes to the CCAR t’shuvah. The “impressive array of scientific organizations” that support genetic modification technology includes the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Science, and the British Royal Society. Meanwhile, the “respected scientific and environmental organizations” that take the opposing position are two: Greenpeace and the Union of Concerned Scientists (and the latter admit that there is no real proof of the supposed risks of Golden Rice). The “pro” side, it would seem, represents the consensus view among the scientific community (remember the 100 Nobel laureates). The “antis,” meanwhile, are clearly a small, left-leaning (if not insignificant) minority. In spite of this, the CCAR responsum cannot bring itself to resolve its doubt in favor of the preponderant majority view.
The problem is that this hesitancy conflicts with the Responsa Committee’s own stated attitude toward the practice called “science.” In a 1999 t’shuvah on compulsory immunization, the Committee wrote as follows (references omitted):
As rabbis, we are not competent to render judgments in scientific controversies. Still, we do not hesitate to adopt “the overwhelming view” as our standard of guidance in this and all other issues where science is the determining factor. True, the scientific consensus is not infallible; history teaches us that the “predominant viewpoint” among scientists has often been wrong. The conclusions we reach in this responsum would therefore change were we to be convinced that the scientific information on which they are based is faulty. Yet we rely upon “the overwhelming view” of scientists, not because scientists are immune to error, but because today’s science is a discipline defined by a rigorous methodology that leads to the recognition and correction of mistakes. The findings of any researcher are tested and retested carefully; they are subject to close scrutiny and peer review… It is precisely because scientists acknowledge that they can be wrong…that “the overwhelming viewpoint,” the consensus opinion among practitioners, is worthy of our confidence.[2]
Another word for “confidence” is trust, faith, emunah. We progressives, the Committee suggests, “believe” in science not out of some dogmatic devotion or affirmation of creed but because science is a discipline that doesn’t require that sort of “belief.” It commands our respect because it works through repetitious testing, the public reporting of its findings, and a method for the correction of error. So while it may be too much to expect that every single scientific practitioner will be in agreement on how to evaluate the data on a question like genetic modification, that a preponderant majority of those practitioners do agree is a reliable basis for our trust and our faith. That sort of trust, after all, has been an essential element of the modern worldview that has given birth to “liberalism” and “progressivism.” All of which means that, when it comes to what we call “progressive halakhah,” if the question before us is one that depends upon fact, upon the evaluation of data, it would seem that, as progressives, our decision ought to follow the consensus opinion. It isn’t that 100 Nobel laureates can’t be wrong; it’s that given the massive body of evidence that supports it, the consensus opinion they endorse is most probably right.
So why did some members of the CCAR Responsa Committee not accept that opinion? It’s quite possible that they reacted to the question out of an understandable excess of caution. There’s no way to be absolutely, positively certain that genetically modified organisms like Golden Rice will not cause some sort of unforeseen harm to the environment, so why shouldn’t we be careful? Yet it is precisely at this point that we have to raise the uncomfortable issue of ideology: there are some folks who, out of a complex of ideological or philosophical or ethical commitments have trouble believing (or trusting) in the findings of science. Now when we talk about such people, we usually have in mind the conservative fundamentalists who deny the consensus scientific positions on climate change and evolution. But it turns out that liberals and progressives, too, are capable of making “war” on science, particularly when the scientific findings seem to clash with their cherished political positions (or “beliefs“), especially on environmental matters such as GMOs. So when we progressives find ourselves at odds with the consensus – and especially the preponderant consensus – among scientific practitioners on this particular issue, we ought to ask ourselves whether our opposition reflects real doubt as to the scientific veracity of the findings… or whether those findings simply conflict with our politics or our ideology.
We don’t wish to push this too far. We’re certainly not saying that science should decide all questions of public controversy. Not every issue is one of “science.” Many issues are indeed “ideological” in the sense that they demand decisions based upon our social, moral, and religious values. But while we progressives are entitled to our ideology, part of that ideology as it has developed over the last 200 years or so has involved the belief (or trust) in scientific method. Thus, when we confront a question that is and by all rights ought to be a scientific one, a matter to be determined by a methodical and objective-as-possible analysis of the available data, then our own progressive values require that we accept the findings of the scientists. And when we don’t, we had better be prepared to explain why we have let our other value commitments, whatever they may be, usurp the deciding role that science ought to enjoy.
______________________________________________________________________
[1] As the halakhah instructs us; see Shulḥan Arukh Yoreh De`ah 336.
[2] The responsum is available online, behind said paywall, and also in print in Reform Responsa for the Twenty-First Century (CCAR Press, 2010). The quoted paragraph appears virtually in its entirety in the “Golden Rice” t’shuvah. Could it be that the Committee, though officially divided as to the answer, is trying to indicate its real majority opinion?