GM Trees – Boon or Bane?

The New York Times ran this interesting story about efforts to genetically engineer trees to address various environmental problems.

In laboratories around the country, researchers are using detailed knowledge of tree genes and recombinant DNA technology to alter the genetic workings of forest trees, hoping to tweak their reproductive cycles, growth rate and chemical makeup, to change their ability to store carbon, resist disease and absorb toxins.

The research is controversial. Environmentalists and others say that because of the large distances tree pollen can travel, altered genes will migrate to natural populations, leading to damage to ecosystems and other unforeseen consequences.

Environmentalists are torn by the research because they generally oppose modern genetic engineering (ignoring the fact that all crops and many tree species are already the result of older genetic modification techniques, ranging from traditional cross-breeding to radiation-induced mutation). Yet thoughtful environmentalists are also struck by the potential to use such techniques to address environmental concerns.

Imagine if the trees needed for paper and pulpwood were grown intensively, like crops, on a fraction of the acreage now subject to timber cutting, reducing the pressure to clear forest land. If this led to an increase in forest area and species habitat, would it not be a good thing? This is actually one of the aims of one of the scientists discussed in the article (Oregon State’s Steven Strauss). I’ve met Dr. Strauss. As I understand it, he began his research as a committed environmentalist seeking to use modern GM techniques for environmental purposes. But the attacks on GM by extreme environmentalists — including the fire-bombing of some of his research — has made him reconsider the “environmentalist” label. While Dr. Strauss and his colleagues seeks real environmental solutions, many environmentalists have become modern-day Luddites, more concerned with the technology used than net environmental impacts. In my opinion, this divide between environmentalists and scientists is unfortunate. It obstructs the pursuit of pracitcal solution to real environmental problems, yet it is all too common in modern environmental policy.