any
wound could lead to septicaemia and even gangrene.
Penicillin was turned into a practical drug during the Second World War, when the
many pestilences
that result from war threatened to kill more people than the
bombs. Of course antibiotics were a priority. Of
course the risks, such as they could
be perceived, were worth taking.
And so with the other items on the scientists' list: electric light bulbs, blood
transfusions, CAT scans,
knives, the measles vaccine — the precautionary principle
would have prevented all of them, they tell us.
But this is just plain wrong. If the
precautionary principle had been applied properly, all these creations
would have
passed muster, because all offered incomparable advantages compared to the risks
perceived at
the time.
Section 2. Another issue is at stake here. Statistics are not the only concept people use when
weighing up risk. Human beings, subtle and evolved creatures that we are, do not survive to threescore years
and ten simply by thinking like pocket calculators. A crucial issue is consumer's choice. In deciding whether
to pursue the development of a new technology, the consumer's right to choose should be considered
alongside considerations of risk and benefit. Clearly, skiing is more dangerous than genetically modified
tomatoes. But people who ski choose to do so; they do not have skiing thrust upon them by portentous
experts of the kind who now feel they have the right to reconstruct our crops. Even with skiing, there is the
matter of cost effectiveness to consider: skiing, I am told, is exhilarating. Where is the exhilaration
in GM soya?
Indeed, in contrast to all the other items on
Spiked's list, GM crops stand out as an example of a
technology whose benefits are far from clear. Some of the risks can at least be defined. But in the present
