• Fail-orama: Futurama Feeds Anti-GMO Paranoia

    Science fiction as a genre has pretty much always had wonderful  humanist and progressive pro-science and even pro-skepticism messages. That’s why it is sad to see some of those values betrayed by one of pop culture’s most successful franchises. Gene Roddenberry’s vision of an egalitarian, secular post-superstition society was radical at inception. Star Wars was a powerful lesson that technology, science, and political might are amoral per se,  and that the important struggles are destined to be won by those with wisdom and empathy. Many science fiction vehicles seem to exist to be thought experiments, where we can explore topics that we struggle with in our own universe: morality, justice, sexuality, meaning, theology, politics and on. The fiction setting  makes this easier, as it somewhat or entirely divorces the issue from entities we have prejudiced affinities or disfavor for. Everyone can understand bigotry when it is portrayed as anti-human bigotry by other aliens.

    But like liberal culture in general, the progressive liberal philosophy that dominates much science fiction has its blind spots, eccentricities, and anti-scientific ideas. I’ve previously written about Star Trek: The Next Generation’s “Prime Directive” as an abdication of moral responsibility. The intense moralization of sex and female virginity that we laugh (or cringe) at conservatives for is the same virtue of sanctity & corruption some liberals display for the environment and living things. Case in point, many progressives believe there is such a thing as the “natural” state of a plant and that nefarious corporate researchers will corrupt it with genetic engineering, creating monsters and our downfall, just as conservatives believe free and open sexuality will create monsters (gay people- and worse!) and lead to our downfall (destruction of The Family(c), degradation of marriage). Case in point: Futurama decided to do an episode recently about genetically modified foods.

    You can read a detailed synopsis via Infosphere. The short version is that Leela randomly contracts an incurable genetic condition which slowly turns her into a tentacle monster. The evil tycoon known as Mom is revealed to be running a new outfit “Momsanto”, which genetically engineers.. horror, mostly, but also livestock and plants. Mom has spliced elephant DNA into beans to make them larger, which horrifies Leela who accuses Mom of “playing God”. Leela attempts to destroy the Momsanto facility, without success. At the end Mom shows up to thank Leela, as she has used Leela’s DNA to fix a flaw in the gigantic beans which will allow Mom to get rich selling them to the starving masses. It is revealed Mom’s genetic engineering cures otherwise incurable illneses and Leela relents when Mom says that she can be cured as well.

    As per usual when addressing controversy, Groening and company take swipes at both “sides” and the basics of the pro and con arguments are at least mentioned. Mom is relentlessly evil and greedy, but it is acknowledged her GMO products can feed and cure millions. Leela is the voice of empathy and justice, but is also self-righteous, hypocritical and somewhat poorly-informed. Many viewers and reviews will take the happy, if cynical, ending as proof of a relatively balanced view of the subject.  In spite of the brief and lazy nod to the benefits of GMO, this episode is steeped in ignorance and fuels baseless, anti-scientific paranoia. Some of this needs to be set straight.

    Genetic engineering is good
    In Leela and the Genestalk, the episode in question, genetic engineering is repeatedly, and nearly always shown or referred to in obsolete and absurd tropes of the “playing god” Frankenstein sort. It’s worth noting that most of these come with emotive visuals. The viewer sees the horrible results which are clearly designed to demonstrate folly and hubris.

    • A labcoated man early in the episode forecasts this tone by saying “God forgive us for creating this” when a robot unexpectedly “achieves consciousness” and runs amok.
    • Mom wants to improve a food plant, but only for profits, and only a-morally, by such things as splicing elephant DNA with that of beans.
    • An indignant, self-righteous Leela then actually accuses Mom of playing God, in those words.
    • GMOs are pitted against “nature” in accordance with the sanctity virtue, as Leela calls them “atrocities against nature” and Mom says, “Nature’s out of its league… “
    • Because genetic experiments are always about monsters
      Because genetic experiments are always about monsters

      A “pine-u-pork” is created during  a scene in which a porcupine is injected with pig DNA then cooked into a platter.

    • Guest star Adam West actually just says “well, back to being the subject of gruesome genetic experiments”, followed by tormented screams.
    • In the lab, grotesque creatures in jars are displayed, and Leela and Fry encounter a monstrous GMO, a crocodile/bird hybrid.
    • Leela and the others discover a giant which Leela refers to as “another one of Mom’s genetic monstrosities” (incorrectly, we learn later, but the reinforcement of the trope works just the same).
    • The last shot shows GMO beanstalks wreaking havoc on the city.

    The message is clear. GMO = monsters. And GMO researchers = evil, stupid, amoral, greedy, and arrogant. At the end there is a brief positive message, as the giant man turns out to have been suffering from an illness and Mom (inexplicably) cured him with genetic engineering. Mom also cures Leela, but note that both cures are off-screen, and neither of these, the only positive uses of GE that are featured, are real or analogs of real diseases that have been or might be treated with genetic methods. Leela outrageously rants that GMO is wrong even though it feeds the hungry because of the scary and nebulous unknown long-term consequences. Wow, good thing you showed up to stop the hubristic scientists from feeding “40 billion” starving people to prevent “unknown consequences”, Leela. We see lots of monsters in this episode, but never a starving person. Funny, that.

    In reality, genetic engineering is an overwhelming, incontrovertible, empirically-supported moral good. We’ve been doing it since 1972. That’s over 40 years and not a single horrible monster, and no devastating catastrophe. Instead, it has helped us to feed the hungry with more robust crops. And, do you know anyone who owes their life to cheap and available insulin? It’s made with genetically modified bacteria. In 2009 an anticoagulant produced in the milk of a transgenic goat was approved for use in surgeries and childbirth. The so-called “enviropig” is a modified pig that better digests phosphorus which greatly diminishes environmental harm of their waste. Transgenic mice and other animals are produced to allow the scientific study of genetics as a whole. Read about gene therapy, much of which is to do with recombinant viruses at virologist  Abbie Smith’s blog. There are presently 1800 trial therapies in humans for treating a couple hundred diseases including many cancers, cystic fibrosis, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s, epilepsy, AIDS, and several forms of cardiovascular disease. A successful GM mosquito that is malaria-resistant was created in 2010. EDIT: because it’s in the news today: the New York times/ Herald Tribune are reporting “Golden Rice” is in final testing. The product is fortified with vitamin A and is pest-resistant. 670,000 children a year die of vitamin A deficiency, and 250,000-500,000 go blind. The product is not owned by Monsanto nor any company and will cost farmers no more than standard rice.

    There are some legitimate reasons for caution, but that’s true of any bioresearch and hardly warrants the hyperbolic paranoia about GMO. We already have institutional review and ethics boards, federal oversight and regulatory agencies, policies and laws. And while those can be fallible, there is no debate about the actual effects of genetic modification research so far observable over 40 years: more people get to be alive, to have better lives, and an astonishing volume of new knowledge and understanding has been granted. There is no reason to think this will change. There is every reason to think it will soon lead to treatments for dozens of diseases as help us solve other important problems.

    The lesson of the episode is not a balanced view. At best, it is dopey cynicism: we’ll go along with this terrible idea merely because we like food and new medical technology. Shame on you, Futurama, for promoting ignorance, credulity, and for feeding baseless hysteria in a lazy bid to articulate a thoughtless, backward bit of ideology.

    Further Reading
    Wikipedia: Genetically modified organism
    Virologist Abbie Smith’s blog
    The AV Club’s Alasfair Wilkins review of the episode
    The Liberals’ War on Science by Michael Shermer
    Is genetically modified Golden Rice a lifesaver?

    Category: Featured Incskepticism

  • Article by: Edward Clint

    Ed Clint is an evolutionary psychologist, co-founder of Skeptic Ink, and USAF veteran.
    • Sonny Moonie

      So you’re saying science fiction comedy cartoons that rehash science fiction premises ridiculously should only allow premises that are politically correct according to your favorable opinion of Monsanto? Monsanto is a corporation, not a person, not a movement, but just a legal fiction set up purely for profit without responsibility, and it’s one that sells GMO seeds and sues farmers who grow other seeds of the same species, because of wind-blown contamination that supposedly infringes Monsanto’s patents. So because this work being done by Monsanto is so great, in your opinion, creators of science fiction comedy that satirizes a wide variety of silly science fiction premises should watch what they say, or else what? You’ll write an editorial that takes them seriously as a competing point of view and they’ll be ashamed? Funny.

      • 1. I’m not sure that you know what “politically correct” means. Things can’t be politically correct per “my opinion” because politically correct refers to prevailing social attitudes of what is acceptable, not to personal ones.
        2. The general attitude and apparent views of the show actually were politically correct.
        3. What on Earth leads you to believe I have a favorable opinion of Monsanto? Almost everything I listed as being a “good” to come out of genetic engineering has nothing to do with Monsanto at all, such as Golden Rice, medical insulin products, and human trials of gene therapy.

        One of the points I was trying to make is that Monsanto’s sins are its shady and harmful business practices which are distinct from the inherent risks/rewards about GMOs (as golden rice is proving). *All* businesses can be predatory and destructive. The shady used car dealer isn’t proof we should stop having cars. Further, Monsanto is *not* synonymous with genetic engineering. There are many. many scientists, NGOs, non-profits, and other organizations doing that work that have nothing to do with Monsanto or its bad behaviors.

        • Sonny Moonie

          Alright, we’re agreed Monsanto has harmful business practices.

          I’m surprised that things can’t be “politically correct” according to one person or another. How can there be a “prevailing social attitude” that anyone knows, if no one can express an opinion that represents that attitude? Believing that there’s an opinion of “everyone” or “society” quite apart and distinct from the opinions of individuals, and that certain combinations of words have to be respectfully reserved for that collective intelligence, because they have always been used that way, supposedly, seems to me a lot like believing in a certain other mysterious intelligence.

          • jg29a

            “I know “politically correct” when used as an unqualified adjective means what’s correct to say in liberal Western politics”

            I don’t think that “liberal Western” is nearly specific enough to capture the concept, since that would have to include proudly blunt leftist representatives of the working class as well as “anything goes” artistic communities, among others. P.C. seems rather to be a narrow product of comfortable humanities academics (and assorted friends in university communities) trying to justify their existence and protect ingroup status. To take just one of the most obvious examples, ordinary liberal people of whatever race who live as friends and neighbors with black people and fully oppose discrimination, rarely go around assiduously saying “African-American”.

    • Shatterface

      I found this hidden on the internet:

      http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony

    • ThePrussian

      It’s a very good article. I think this is the kind of thing that Michael Shermer was writing about in the case of “left wing anti-science”

    • What a pity! Remind me to boycott Futurama for…well, a week, anyway.

      Incidentally, I find the popular media’s coverage of GMOs to be almost uniformly scare-mongering, as if ANY GMO has EVER been shown to cause any other than carefully-directed harm – as in, stopping insect larvae boring tunnels in maize or cotton plants. And as for “Monsanto” being synonymous with GM: there are plenty of other institutions / companies / NGOs making GMOs; don’t tar them all with the Monsanto-bad-business-model brush, because they don’t deserve it.

      Disclaimer: I help make GMOs at a University. And no, I am not funded by Monsanto.

      • heavenpiercingman

        Heh, it’s useless. Conspiraphrenics think Monsanto is even more powerful than the FEMA, NWO and Illuminatis put together.

        • Conspirati! I know, it’s ridiculous.

    • Esmae

      What you blockheads don’t understand is this, we’re not paranoid anymore than you are afraid of nature, we refuse to be a science experiment it really simple.

      I wasn’t paid to post this comment.

      • Esmae

        sites birthdate 2012 right in time mavens coming out of the wood work on Monsanto’s behalf.

        • That’s right: make a provocative comment, then accuse anyone who contradicts you of being a Monsanto shill. Works every time – because reasonable people just switch off in the face of such obdurate ignorance.

      • I must ask you to refrain from insults, even the Charlie Brown-grade ones as they are unproductive and counter to the discussion policy here.

      • heavenpiercingman

        What part of “THEY ARE TESTED FOR YEARS” don’t you not understand? Take your ignorant fearmongering back to Mercola.

    • Helga Vierich

      It is not a matter of whether or not genetic modification is all good or all bad. Each time a genetically modified plant or animal is produced, it needs to be tested. See http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.arplant.58.032806.103840That is not all there is to it, of course, since there is also a lot of money riding on the use of these kinds of organisms within our economy, and it is only sane to be cautious about accepting that big corporations have our best interests at heart. After the years of denial of the effects of tobacco, on the effects of lead, on the effects of asbestos, there are some good grounds for preferring to be sceptical. Even many geneticists have a degree of skepticism.

      The funny thing abut all this is that the really pressing problem that we face today is not whether or not genetically modified organism are safe to eat. I know that is where consumer interests lie, along with a whole lot of hysteria. There are so many studies – independent of the corporations who have the most to gain – out now on the most commonly available genetically modified plants like canola, soybeans, rice, and maize, that indicate that a lot of the hysteria is unwarranted. http://gmopundit.blogspot.ca/p/450-published-safety-assessments.html

      The far more pressing matter is twofold: 1) that these varieties are already losing their advantages, due to weed and past resistance. http://www.weedscience.org/summary/home.aspx http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/superweeds-farming-threat-ragweed-forest/

      and 2) that conventional agriculture – huge areas mechanically cultivated for mono-cropping with chemical fertilizers – is causing erosion on a massive scale.
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090902112105.htm
      http://www.sciencemag.org/content/267/5201/1117.abstract

      Both of these will have impact in the future. As with the use of antibiotics, the use of scientific discoveries can save lives but also backfire due to evolutionary processes that should have been taken into account before their widespread use. Weed resistance, like pest resistance was inevitable. But the loss of arable soils is a disaster, especially at a time when climate change is underway and supplies of fresh water and phosperous are under strain.
      http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/29335/title/Elemental-Shortage/
      http://phys.org/news/2011-06-continental.html
      http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/02/agriculture-sucking-fresh-water-dry?ref=hp

      Given these two facts, it is cheering that an alternative is being developed at Cornell University, IRRI, and at many other Institutions. This method rests on revolutionary agronomic techniques and results in much higher yields as well as much less water use. This began with rice and is being used with success on a number of other crops.
      http://www.ifad.org/english/sri/
      http://sri.ciifad.cornell.edu
      http://irri.org/news/hot-topics/system-of-rice-intensification-sri
      http://sri.ciifad.cornell.edu

      My own feeling, having worked for some years in one of the institutes of the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research, is that climate change, land use changes (especially deforestation) and soil erosion with increasing population is the most serious problem facing humanity today. All this hysteria stirred up over the “safety” of GMOs is a distraction from the work of thousands and thousands of sincere scientists, at various institutes such as those I have linked to here.

      • Robert King

        So Helga, your argument boils down to the precautionary principle. We dont know what might happen? Well, we need to test things. Precaution itsf can be taken to dangerous ends. Unless you believe in some mystical “balance of nature”, then leaving things as they are can also be dangerous

    • Matt Fehl

      its not everyday i read an article this long by someone that didnt get the joke

    • Jaded

      Poe’s law.

    • Robert King

      The end of the piece…where they offer cures..changes the whole tone, doesnt it?