Response by Strauss and his Colleagues to the Vandalism

Steven Strauss heads an Oregon State University program that grows genetically modified poplars near Corvallis, Oregon. Below is a statement that Strauss and his laboratory colleagues wrote April 10, after the trees were vandalized:

It has been more than two weeks since our field trials of genetically modified (i.e., GM or genetically engineered) poplar trees growing near Corvallis, Oregon were vandalized. Although we have received tremendous support from numerous people in our community and throughout the state and country, complex feelings of anger and sadness over the incident persist. We write to offer some further explanation of the research and what the future may hold.

First, the research we were conducting had the broad support of a diverse array of scientific agencies, forest industries, and local farmers who recognize the potential of biotechnology to increase tree productivity and reduce environmental impacts of plantation management. The scientific agencies that have reviewed and funded our work include the Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, National Science Foundation, and Department of Energy. The work is not solely motivated or in any way forced by giant corporations solely for profit. It is of intense interest to a highly diverse array of stakeholders that include scientists, growers, and the public. Although all of these parties also recognize distinct challenges in safe and beneficial use of trees produced via biotechnology, they share a commitment to research that investigates how best to obtain benefit while minimizing adverse effects.

Second, contrary to the terrorist claims that tree plantations are ecologically undesirable, plantations have been endorsed by a wide variety of environmental organizations as an important means to reduce pressure on native forests for exploitation. The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), which certifies sustainably managed forests and forest products, has endorsed some of the most intensive plantation operations in the world. These often involve major genetic novelties such as exotic tree species, hybrids, and clones, including hybrid poplars. FSC members include organizations such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the Worldwide Fund for Nature, and many other environmental non-governmental organizations. Although FSC is only one kind of environmental certification system, several of its policies have been vigorously criticized on scientific and socio-economic grounds, and it does not yet recognize genetically modified trees for certification, its guidelines make it clear that plantations are not outside of their definition of sustainable forestry. If integrated within landscapes in an ecologically rational manner, plantations are clearly part of the answer, not the problem.

Third, the terrorists claimed that our experiments were "dangerous" but did not say how or why. The nation's best geneticists and ecologists long ago made clear, and last year reaffirmed, that the process of GM is not necessarily any more dangerous to the environment than traditional breeding. It depends on the traits imparted, not the method of imparting them. Most of the trees that were damaged had within them a modified form of a gene from poplar that is critical to flowering. It was being used to study how to prevent normal flowering for those cases where minimizing, or avoiding, the release of pollen and seed from intensively bred trees is desirable. This would allow production benefits to be realized with little concern for effects on natural populations. We are not doing this research because we believe it is essential to prevent the release of every GM trait from plantations, or that GM traits pose significant threats to wild populations. Our goal is simply to make this option available for improving environmental stewardship when practicing plantation forestry.

Fourth, although these terrorists, who we must assume will return to vandalize again, present considerable challenges to our research program, we remain committed to the use of GM trees in field research. This commitment will remain until such time as it becomes impossible to carry out field trials as a result of either terrorist action or choking regulatory restrictions. The scientific method of GM provides extraordinary power for understanding how organisms function, and thus for ultimately developing new methods for breeding more productive and pest-resistant trees. It does not take specialized training to see that modifying the actual genes that control important traits can allow breeders to improve production efficiency in ways they could not via traditional methods. This is especially true for trees, for which breeding progress is hampered by their poor genetic tools and the long delay until onset of flowering. The scientific potential is large, and depends on field research to determine ultimate value and safety.

Finally, what is most striking about eco-terrorism is the undemocratic manner in which these individuals pass judgement on the social, economic, and scientific issues raised by GM trees. Do they know, better than the numerous scientists and representatives of elected government officials that have considered them, what is in the best interest of the majority of people or of the environment? By what democratic authority do they assert that all research with GM trees is dangerous or unethical? Why do they not make their case to the public openly, rather than to act criminally and anonymously? Do they not realize that a vigorous and open debate about biotechnology is already well underway in the United States and around the world - in which a number of environmental organizations are already engaged? What does terrorism add to this? Do they not realize that GM research is highly regulated by federal and state government, and is thus already far more precautionary than any kind of breeding that has gone before it? Scientific issues aside, the "morals" of these eco-terrorists are inimical to the democratic ideals that nearly all Americans hold dear. On this basis alone we hope that most citizens, including those of the mainstream environmental organizations, see fit to denounce these acts adamantly and unconditionally.

-- Steven H. Strauss, Richard Meilan, Amy M. Brunner, Stephen P. DiFazio, Jeffrey S. Skinner, Caiping Ma, Jace Carson, Pearce Smithwick, Sarah Dye, Jingyi Li, and Hao Wei; Forest Biotechnology Laboratory, College of Forestry, Oregon State University