Genetically engineered trees - Essay Example

Weighing the Risk of Generically Engineered Trees Genetically engineered trees, known as transgenic, have been available to science since the late 1980s ("Genetic Engineering"). However, these trees have faced a special environmental challenge due their sizable impact on a habitat and their ability to cross-pollinate for hundreds of miles. While critics point out the risks associated with transgenic trees, proponents point to the potential for economic as well as the environmental promise that the new technology holds.

The issue of the method and speed of introducing a transgenic species of trees into the wild is filled with controversy. Evaluating the risks against the potential gain from this science can aid us in reaching a reasonable conclusion about the safety of engineered trees and the caution needed to pursue this science. The possibility of genetically engineered paper has been possible since 1998 when a team of researchers at Michigan State University engineered an aspen tree to produce higher-grade paper pulp (Lubick).

The economic pressure to initiate large-scale transgenic tree plantations is enormous and according to Lubick, "[.] trees are the next big crop plant". The paper and lumber industry stands to reap hundreds of millions of dollars in profits from the increased pulp and wood production that is available from these trees (Lubick). The pressure from business, and the ability of the trees to cross pollinate for hundreds of miles, places us dangerously close to spreading the new genetic species globally on a massive scale.

Critics argue that once the new genetic strains are turned loose in the wild, there will be no turning back. Trees that create their own pesticides may kill off desirable insects and leave the forest unable to support wildlife ("Genetic Engineering"). Trees that are resistant to pests and disease may take over parks and national forests with a "kudzu-like threat" ("Genetic Engineering"). Peter Raven, director of the Missouri Botanical Garden, contends that they could, "[.] have unplanned deleterious effects on a natural forest's butterfly and moth populations" (qtd.

in Lubick).Advocates of the new technology contend that the environmental gains as well as the economic benefits of transgenic trees are worth the risk. They argue that land for forest harvesting could be less than 20 percent of what it currently being used (Lubick). They also state that pest resistant trees would require less chemical applications resulting in a cleaner environment (Lubick). There are also additional uses for these transgenic species such as filtering mercury from a polluted area and converting it into a safer form (Lubick).

There is no doubt that there is pressure from the forest industry to unleash these trees into commercial farming and industry's main motivation is "growing the bottom line" (Genetic Engineering). Once put into the environment, there will be no way to reverse the process. Pollen will spread and trees may become the death of the wildlife that depends on them. As the Sierra Club points out, the gain of higher paper production would not be necessary if we would save paper or eliminate junk mail (Genetic Engineering).

Additional uses of engineered trees have not been proven and may carry even greater risks than today's varieties. This technology warrants research, but much more needs to be done to assure the public of a safe and environmentally friendly application.Works Cited"Genetic Engineering." Genetically Engineered Trees. Sierra Club. 13 Nov. 2006 .Lubick, Naomi . "Designing Trees." Scientific American. 2006. 13 Nov. 2006 .