The development of genetic engineering or biotechnology attracts support from many quarters. Some are dazzled by the prospects of increased power and profit from the colonisation and industrialisation of evolution's basic building block, the genetic code. Others have less selfish aspirations. Humanistic aspirations to combat crippling physical and mental disorders, for example, lead many sections of the general public to support genetic engineering. So too do hopes that new strains of superproductive plants could put an end to the scourge of world hunger.
Many environmentalists are also keen supporters of biotechnology.
In 1983, environmental organisations such as the Countryside Commission, World Wildlife Fund and the then Nature Conservancy Council endorsed The Conservation and Development Programme for the UK , which celebrated biotechnology as a 'sunrise industry' and one of 'the environment's growth poles'. In Save the Earth , edited by Jonathon Porritt, Peter Raven, a member of the US National Science Board, claims that 'genetic engineering will widen the reach of our great-grandchildren, enabling them to put together altered kinds of organisms that will be productive indefinitely under the conditions in which they are grown'. The dirty smokestacks of 'old-fashioned' industrialism lead many more to foresee a bright new world in which genetically engineered organisms will not only increase yields and create safer chemical feed stocks but also reduce dependence upon biocides, gobble up pollutants such as oil spills and replace extinct species. Only a few lone voices have warned that, whatever possible benefits conceivably there might be in certain areas, here is a Pandora's Box which should remain firmly closed. It is, of course, true that techniques such as the use of yeast in brewing are age-old.