When Jerry Jenkins (agronomy '59) looks around his acres of tobacco in Lunenburg County, he sees two vastly different futures for his farm and for the business he has worked in all his life. One future is of narrowing possibilities in a withering industry. The other is of a prosperous future in an increasingly important industry. "The tobacco industry is slowly drying up in Southside Virginia," Jenkins says. "A lot of people will be displaced if something doesn't change."

The "something" that Jenkins refers to is biotechnology.

"There's a great deal of potential with biotechnology and tobacco," Jenkins says. "Potential for me personally, for the area, and for the state." State agricultural and economic development officials share that hope, both for the boost it would provide to farmers and for the added potential for the creation of companies in Virginia that would use the raw materials of transgenic tobacco to create products. It could be the economic engine that will reinvigorate depressed areas of the state.

The transgenic tobacco market--which does not yet exist--could require a number of growers, each producing small amounts of highly specialized, high-value plants. And this may depend on the number of products that survive years of scientific and commercial development, as well as the hurdles of regulatory approval. A portion of today's tobacco producers could eventually grow bio-engineered tobacco, and a portion could be left out of that market.

The need to know

Jenkins' dilemma is part of the larger picture that George Norton, professor of agricultural and applied economics at Virginia Tech, plans to investigate: determining the economic and social impacts that may result from the adoption of biotechnology--or from the failure to adopt it.

Agricultural biotechnology holds the promise of hardier, healthier, and more abundant sources of food for people around the world, as well as for the creation of new sources for pharmaceuticals. Biotechnology is also likely to produce winners and losers as a result of social and economic impacts, says Norton, who believes sorting out these social and economic effects may be critical to public acceptance of biotechnology. Without that acceptance, he fears, many potential benefits may be lost.

Norton is heading an effort centered at Virginia Tech and including scientists worldwide that will investigate the social and economic effects of biotechnologies. The project is funded by a $1.1-million grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The scientific achievements of biotechnology have been occurring at such an astounding pace that social and economic assessments have lagged behind, Norton says. "There are major benefits that can be expected from agricultural biotechnology, but we expect to see distributional effects as well. For example, early adopters of the technology may be in a stronger position than those who adopt it later, or consumers who use the products generated through biotech may benefit more than producers themselves."

The four-year project will investigate the impacts of biotechnology from a social science perspective. The faculty members involved will draw on the expertise of Virginia Tech researchers who have pioneered key biotechnology procedures, especially in the area of generating human pharmaceuticals from plants and animals.

"We can't look into economics or social issues in a vacuum," Norton says. "We'll have to inform ourselves [about the scientific aspects of biotechnology] as we go ahead, but we also want to keep our perspective. We don't want to be an advocate for any side of this."

Other faculty members involved in the project at Virginia Tech include Brad Mills, Dixie Watts Reaves, and Mike Ellerbrock in agricultural and applied economics; Laura Parisi in the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies; and Colette Harris in the Office of International Research and Development. Scientists at Virginia State University, North Carolina State University, the University of Tennessee, and the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines are also participating.

"The complexity of the issues requires a team approach," says Norton. "Our group brings expertise in environmental mediation, the economics of tobacco and rice production, evaluation of agricultural research, gender issues, international political economy, and the study of the politics and economics of technology transfer and diffusion."

A look at who will--and who won't--benefit

Much of agricultural biotechnology that has been marketed to date has been aimed at enhancing productivity. Increasingly, biotechnology is being applied to add to the value of crops, such as by increasing nutritional value, adding certain vitamins, or in coaxing plants to create substances that can be used in making pharmaceuticals.

The study is concentrating on tobacco and rice because those crops are the focus of much biotechnology research. Tobacco is a plant whose genetics are relatively easily manipulated, making it an ideal candidate for producing compounds to be used in creating pharmaceuticals that treat human diseases. Rice is a staple food for much of the world's population, especially the poor. Biotechnology might be a boon to consumers around the globe, and it might help maintain the viability of farms producing the crops.

"We say 'might' benefit because no one really has studied in detail who is likely to benefit and who is likely to lose," Norton says, adding that the research is expected to generate information for policy-makers as well as the general public in the United States and abroad.

The public has been bombarded by hype from both proponents and opponents of biotechnology. "More informed public opinion may help smooth the way for adoption of socially beneficial biotechnologies and hinder the spread of ones where the risks appear to be unacceptable compared to the potential benefits," Norton says.

The research will begin by collecting information concerning attitudes of producers and consumers through surveys and focus groups. Researchers will develop a framework to assess economic and social impacts of agricultural biotechnologies. The group will then develop educational materials about the benefits, costs, and concerns associated with biotechnologies for students and the general public. Those educational materials will be distributed in K-12 educational programs, college courses, and to the general public through Web-based materials.

Norton wants ordinary people to be able to envision alternate futures, just as Jerry Jenkins does in Lunenburg County. They will need to, as agricultural biotechnology is increasingly offered as a solution to the problems of feeding people and keeping them healthy.

Norton has faith that if people have the proper tools to make informed judgments about biotechnology, hype won't push a poor product to success--or keep a good product from the market.

Q & A: Bioethics in agricultural biotechnology

Virginia Tech Magazine talked to Doris Zallen, professor of science and technology studies, about bioethics, the study of ethical and social concerns in biotechnology. Zallen, who trained as a geneticist, teaches and conducts research at the intersection of genetics, ethics, and public policy in the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies.

Q: What are the primary benefits of agricultural biotechnology?

A: As with any technology, the goal is to create a healthier, safer, and more interesting life for people. The ability to do more precise genetic modification of animals and plants has opened up new areas of investigation. Overall, agricultural technologies have produced sturdier, more nutritious, disease-resistant animals and plants; developed ways of achieving greater yields that meet the needs of a growing domestic and international population; and developed systems of food preparation and distribution that have made the food supply safer throughout the world.

Q: What are the primary concerns with agricultural biotechnology?

A: With such a rapid pace of research and application, we run the risk of moving so quickly that we fail to evaluate fully the effects. One always has to consider possible harms that might emerge--harms to human and environmental health both in the short and the long term. The fact that genetically modified foods have been labeled "Frankenfood" by some people indicates that there are safety concerns that have to be addressed. We also need to consider whether changes in ecosystems might result, which can adversely affect animals and plants in our environment. There is some evidence that this may be happening. We also have to look at the larger picture, at the economic and cultural effects of these technologies, such as the consequences to local markets in developing countries of concentrating knowledge--and economic power--in a few industries.

Q: What role has Virginia Tech played in the field of bioethics?

A: I think it's important to point out that Virginia Tech has long had a commitment to bringing consideration of the human effects of science and technology into the classroom. In my own department and in others, we tackle the hard questions raised by such advances. The expectation is that our students will emerge as better-informed professionals and that they will be thoughtful citizens as well, able to contribute to the fashioning of fair and effective public policies. Also, since 1985, the Choices and Challenges forum project [founded and directed by Zallen] has created a campus and community dialogue on issues ranging from genetic engineering of a cell to technologies that permit the exploration of space. This series has been so successful that Choices and Challenges forums have become a national educational resource in the area of bioethics.

Q: What is the role of the public in these debates about agricultural biotechnology?

A: There must be a partnership between experts and the public as we consider where and how we proceed with agricultural as well as other technologies. Citizens need to be informed and involved. We all have a stake in seeing that the fruits of science and technology are used properly. The public often brings up matters of fairness--whether the people who will bear the burdens will also receive some of the benefits--and gives attention to costs and resource allocation. The public also tends to focus on the effects of technology on quality of life, including the quality of the environment both now and in the future. As you can see, citizens have a lot to contribute.

For more information on the Choices and Challenges forum project, go to www.cis.vt.edu/choices.