This file is also available in Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). 
CASE TEACHING NOTES
|
This case examines the drama currently being enacted worldwide over the risks (and perceived risks) as well as the benefits (and perceived benefits) of biotechnology, which has pitted environmentalists, conservationists, and some religious groups against agricultural businesses, scientists, and farmers.
The case was first used in a slightly different format in a vegetable crops course (HORT 456/656) at Clemson University in the fall of 2000. The students in that course were horticulture/turf grass majors, primarily juniors and seniors as well as two graduate students. Since that time the case has been rewritten to focus on a fictionalized account of an attack on a research facility by environmental activists opposed to plant biotechnology.
Biotechnology is now an integral part of agricultural and vegetable production and the stakes are high for industry and agriculture as well as the consumer. In working through the case, students examine the scientific and ethical issues of agricultural biotechnology and are asked to consider the following:
One topic of discussion is what are the most important elements of plant food production. The contribution of environment (soil nutrients and salt concentration, water, temperature) and genotype (varieties, cultivars, clones, etc.) should become evident to the students as the discussion proceeds. The instructor should point out the differences between food production on a portion of land in one specific locale in contrast to corporate growers who manage thousands of acres around the world. More traditional farmers have saved seed, and the fate of these seed varieties in the future is unclear. Many farmers continue to use outmoded toxic pesticides to protect their crops against increasingly resistant pests. The corporate farmer, on the other hand, is more capable of change and of managing the risk but may use only a handful of seed varieties with the same genetic background. If more food can be produced on fewer acres with fewer pesticides, less land will be required by agriculture. A fuller discussion of these issues can be found in the sources cited under References below.
Another topic for discussion is the impact of agriculture on the land and on people. Discussion of this topic can be found in World Resources 2000-2001 or the website associated with it (see References below). Biotechnology is not a panacea, and students will learn that agricultural production requires many inputs, any of which can doom an ordinary or a high tech food crop. For example, agricultural production depends on soil fertility and structure, rather narrow temperature and day length parameters, and adequate soil moisture, whether from normal rainfall or supplemental irrigation.
With this background information, the nature of plant biotechnology, how discoveries are made and applied to agriculture, who owns the lion’s share of biotechnology, and who is able to pay for it should be discussed. Biotechnology is largely in the hands of huge international companies that have the technological capacity to quickly exploit and patent new genes. Most third world farmers simply cannot afford the new technologies themselves and must rely on others for their development.
Questions concerning how the science of biotechnology squares with the press generated by the activists and why the term “genetically modified” food is actually a misnomer should be explored. Almost all human food has been genetically modified by mankind for thousands of years to suit our preferences and our environment—unfortunately, the term “genetically modified” has become confused with recombinant DNA techniques. One of the most disturbing changes taking place is the use of genes from unrelated or distantly related organisms. New genes can direct plants and animals to generate large quantities of products that they never before produced. These genes can escape their new species bounds and create new plant and animal species. However, activists seldom give a balanced perspective of risks and regulation.
In summing up, the class discussion should center on the benefits and perceived benefits of biotechnology. Both risks and benefits are described more fully in the answers to the case questions below.
Answers to the questions posed in the case study are provided in a separate answer key to the case. Those answers are password-protected. To access the answers for this case, go to the key. You will be prompted for a username and password. If you have not yet registered with us, you can see whether you are eligible for an account by reviewing our password policy and then apply online or write to answerkey@sciencecases.org.
When the case was taught in the fall of 2000, the class comprised 27 students divided into five teams of three to five students. Students were randomly assigned to their teams before the course began.
The case was taught as a discussion case. Students were given the case and a set of questions similar to those that appear at the end of the case a week before the in-class discussion and expected to discuss the issues and develop answers to the questions as a team. Teams worked together with the aid of a computer-based tool for online collaboration called MYCLE (My Collaborative Learning Environment). MYCLE has built into it discussion boards and chat sessions, which the students made use of to discuss the case study questions. In addition to the references and websites provided (see References below), excerpts from the online debates on the AgBioView website (see http://www.agbioworld.org) also were made available in a resource folder in MYCLE. To access these debates, the reader can go to the AgBioView Discussion List Archives at http://comet.sparklist.com/scripts/lyris.pl?visit=agbioview.
The in-class discussion of the case was led by the instructor and covered the topics included under “Analysis of Major Issues.” In conjunction with the case, the class spent an hour on “A Short Course on Biotechnology,” an industry-developed slide presentation with sound and script, and an hour on an open discussion of the recent StarLink corn taco shell case.
In preparation for an in-class discussion, you could give each group a separate role as a stakeholder in this debate:
The groups would be given the case and questions a week before the class in which the case was scheduled to be discussed and asked to research and prepare written responses to the questions from their particular group’s perspective. Then, on the day of the case, the students would discuss their answers in their groups as preparation for a general class discussion. As each question was raised, the groups could be called upon to give their different viewpoints on the issue. It would also be possible to use a cooperative learning strategy called jigsawing here. One person from each of the groups would be placed together in a new group arrangement. The job of these new groups would be to hammer out a policy statement or position paper to present to the United Nations to solve the problem of how to regulate genetically modified foods internationally. The position paper would have to articulate the concerns as well as the roles and responsibilities of each of the interest groups.
When the case was taught at Clemson, each team was asked to submit a team report, which consisted of the group’s answers to the questions in the case narrative. In addition, each student in the class had to submit an individual report on some aspect of biotechnology related to agricultural seeds or plants. In general, the essays were quite good and indicated an increased understanding and appreciation for hard science, government regulation, and the potential of biotechnology. Grading of the team reports was difficult. Justified opinions were given high scores, and poorly prepared answers without sources were not.
For the individual reports, the students were asked to focus on one particular aspect of the biotechnology of crops and seeds that interested them. Selected comments from the individual reports are reprinted below:An excellent source of information for instructors is:
In addition, the following references are provided to the students with the case:
Acknowledgements: This case study was developed with support from The Pew Charitable Trusts and the National Science Foundation as part of the Case Studies in Science Workshop held at the State University of New York at Buffalo on May 22-26, 2000.
This file is also available in Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF).
Originally published at http://www.sciencecases.org/gmfoods/gmfoods_notes.asp
Copyright © 1999–2009 by the National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science. Please see our usage guidelines, which outline our policy concerning permissible reproduction of this work.
