Galileo Galilei was born on Feb. 15, 1564. He died on Jan. 8, 1642. He was an Italian scientist and philosopher who is credited for establishing the importance of disinterested observation in all manner of scientific inquiry. If the truth can ever be discovered it can be discovered only if we transcend superstition, ignorance and unfounded bias.
Galileo championed in his lifetime the cause of heliocentrism even at the risk of offending the church which previously supported him. Unfortunately, the belief at that time was that the earth was the center of the universe. This belief was something of a religious tenet seen as if it were a truth established by God himself. Thus Galileo spent the latter part of his life under house arrest and was eventually forced to recant his writings by acceding that heliocentrism was merely a possibility instead of an observed fact. Even so, he would later on still be credited for being the Father of Modern Science.
Galileo’s story tells how scientific inquiry often ran counter to established orders which included both religious and secular institutions. Yet by the late 1800s it had been fairly established that science would be the key to human progress. The industrial age, especially the age of machines, did much to alleviate the poverty which grew rampant since the time of Galileo. Even so, there would always be a resistance to progress. There would always be a resistance to change.
This suspicion of changes brought about by science has deep roots even in modern times. The ’60s were always an age when people lived under the threat of annihilation triggered by the proliferation of the atom bomb. And then there was the Thalidomide tragedy. Thalidomide was a sleeping drug not sufficiently tested on animals before it was sold to the public. It resulted in at least 10,000 cases of birth defects before it was taken off the market.
But anxieties over technology though understandable can also border on the paranoid. Recall the initial resistance people had to the microwave oven. The opponents claimed it changed the molecular structure of food. Many claimed it was harmful. And yet, such claims were never scientifically proven. Now microwaves have become essential tools for every kitchen. The tool succeeds because of the benefits it brings. As always it will have its disadvantages and yet, its popular use only proves these are outweighed by its benefits.
But this balance of resistance and acceptance will always greet any product representing a great technological leap. Thus, the mixed reaction to Genetic Modification technology. This balance of resistance and acceptance is of course necessary, to be sure. The introduction of new technology rightfully should be scrutinized for its impact to man and the planet. But this act of scrutiny ought to be based on observation, it ought be based on disinterested and unbiased scientific inquiry. Done otherwise, we fall back to the days of Galileo when science suffered under the tyranny of human institutions that relied only on unfounded claims and paranoia. And this would take away from us the benefits of technology that would make life easier and safer for humans overall.
The discussion over GMO talong (eggplant) is understandably necessary and yet, the decision of a Philippine court to ban it here altogether is at the very least bothersome and possibly extremist. While it is not yet proven scientifically that the modified species is not toxic to humans, to ban it altogether dooms the question into oblivion. How can any claim be proven if scientific inquiry over it is disallowed? It harks back to the time of Galileo when institutions could actually pit themselves against scientific progress. The greater tragedy is that possible benefits are denied those who need it most. In the case of GMO talong, poor countries who are hard put to feed their hungry. For shame if those who do this, do so in “care” of the planet.
Even so, the advance of science and progress will not be stopped. Especially in the case of genetic modification and its promise of technologies that may produce cures to some of the diseases which now plague us, technologies which might lengthen life itself. Repressive legislation and judicial action will only delay it or drive it underground to such an extent that only the rich and powerful benefit from it. In the case of GMO talong, it only stands in the way of finding out the truth about a technology that might reduce the use of pesticides in agriculture and possibly ease hunger in the world.