In a recent editorial in the prestigious Nature Biotechnology journal the clarity and courage of the editorialist attracts attention as he confronts the question of the much talked about role of biotechnology in the solution of whatever problem is faced by humanity. The preponderant place of this discipline in the large number of progress options has turned it, together with nanotechnology, into a great business. In fact, there are many possible questionings as to the actual reach of biotechnology, who benefits from it and the reality or feasibility of the gigantic advances that are proclaimed.

For each new step given by man in the development of his technological capabilities, and there have been many, substantial improvements in the quality of the environment, in human health and in the life quality of man have been announced with great fanfare. If such improvements were true, we would be much closer than we seem to be to solving the often extreme hunger, the epidemics and endemisms still persisting, the growing energetic crisis, the unstoppable global warming and, why not, the misery still suffered by an incredibly large part of mankind.

Distrust, not only from groups that care, sometimes with an exaggerated jealousy, for the well being of the planet and of the spirit, but also from governments and from whole populations, is not for free. The existing worries about the balance of virtues between the use of massive crops for the development of new energy sources or for food is not trivial, as well as the possible risks of severe and unsuspected troubles as a consequence of the consumption of genetically modified products whose harmlessness, both for the consumer as for the environment, has not been clearly and definitively demonstrated. Neither are trivial the worries about the very uncertain accessibility of the poor to the new and promising possibilities of a better life that are offered by genetic therapy.

The fact that the most important medium for the diffusion of the new knowledge that emerges from the biotechnology laboratories existing nowadays echoes the questionings to this discipline and makes a call for prudence by its practitioners and traders is undoubtedly an attitude that requires plenty of courage. It is obvious that, also in this case, reason sustains courage. The central point, the denunciation that anticipated and exaggerated publicity is self-defeating for the progress of biotechnology, is more than rational. Nature’s editorialist calls for caution when expressing opinions about that which biotechnology can presently do and when making exaggerated promises about that which it can achieve in the future, at the same time that he criticizes all what is said about it without real reasons or factual support. Unfortunately, very often for those who promote capital investment in the market of biotechnology enterprises, noise and expectations, with or without hold, count more than reasons do.

Although this deals with a field that advances with a surprising speed in the first world, many of the developing countries are equally involved in research, environmental protection, industrial production, commercialization, legislation and many other aspects of biotechnology that touch upon the rationality of the expectations and the possibilities of a tangible progress for our citizens. To adequately plan and support the work in this area is a need, and it must be done without trying to convince the audiences that biotechnology will solve our existence, so as to avoid creating negative opinions that, in the long run, will impede progress in many aspects where this field of science and technology is certainly capable of contributing substantial improvement in the health and well being of our people.

Miguel Laufer

Editor