Botany intrigues me, but trees, more so than the grasses, orchids, mosses and ferns, offer a sense of grandeur. Riding through southern Virginia this past weekend, soft white cotton-candy clouds mirrored the cotton fields below. I was riding into a movie set, perfect for any scene, viewing a flawless painting through my windshield. Stands of bright orange pumpkins punctuated the small towns. I lost all desire to work on my laptop in the car and surrendered to the view.
I saw a couple of cotton fields between Emporia and South Hill where farmers had chosen to leave a single mature tree, possibly an oak, where the horses pulling the plows cooled off years ago. A rare and provocative sight, those trees are, standing there as mute sentries of a distant time.
It's easy to see old trees in other countries. Aging trees in Great Britain, for example, are given lots of support from the state. The English Heritage and the National Trust maintain parks throughout the country. Various props support the weak or broken limbs.
Perhaps somewhere in the United States older trees are cared for in this way, but if so, I haven't seen them. Send me an e-mail if you know of any.
However, our Department of Energy is engaged in fascinating research on genetically modified trees. The DOE supported research that completed the genome of Populus trichocarpa, the black cottonwood tree, in 2004. A company called ArborGen down in Charleston, S.C., will put these and other genetically modified trees on the market this fall. Soon we can buy some for our own backyards.
Any potential solution to climate change deserves serious scrutiny. That's why I lifted both eyebrows when I read about ArborGen in the August issue of Popular Science and rushed to check it out.
Do we really need genetically modified trees? Well, maybe we do. It makes sense that the land and habitat violated by machines and chemical fertilizers might be rejuvenated by science as well.
My point? That my knee isn't jerking to kick genetic modification. I am considering a friendlier view toward genetically modified organisms and trees in particular. Perhaps tropical reforestation will eventually be the fruit of this research. Think of it, students: a career growing profits from tropical hardwood nurseries and exporting them to the developing world.
Take a look at the company Tropical Hardwoods in Costa Rica, a for-profit forest regeneration project.
For $1,000 you can plant 100 nonmodified, native hardwoods and reap the harvest. The golden-faced monkey and other animals are returning to the this rainforest plantation. You can either use the wood yourself or have it sold for you.
I am not terrified by the idea of genetically modified trees, but curious. What do the scientists here at Duke think?
There are a few areas of concern. The science of genetics is advancing so rapidly with incredible successes in medicine and research, but a specific set of problems exists with genetically modified crops. Many of those problems stem from unnecessary federal subsidies.
In the past decade, FDA-approved crops were planted in the Third World before being thoroughly tested. Parts of India where this happened are now referred to as the "suicide belt" because so many farmers gave up the good fight after severe crop failures, funding restrictions and quotas.
Furthermore, U.S.-subsidized modified crops dumped in the Third World destroy the fragile markets of local farmers in India and Africa. Could these same problems occur with trees? Possibly, but not if we've learned anything. Agreements between American-based agricorporations and poverty-stricken provincial regulators in India required small farmers to grow genetically modified crops in such a way that almost makes these farmers look like guinea pigs. Indian economist Devinder Sharma has written on these topics with great passion.
Ownership, safety and utility are all ethical issues I'd like to hear more about from the scientists working in the field. The complexity requires more in-depth media coverage. Journalists and editors need to look deeply and not shy away from these topics. If we don't stand for something we will fall for anything.
I stand for more information.
The goals of ArborGen's GM trees are to speed up production of paper. We will not know the safety or restorative uses of genetically modified silviculture for years, perhaps decades, but all we've learned about invasive species and the potential spread of modified pollen suggests proceeding with both caution and an open mind.
Call me romantic, but I still think of a forest as a sanctuary of undiscovered wonders culinary, botanical and medicinal. But I am going to keep an open mind.
Chrystal Stefani is assistant to the director of undergraduate studies in the Department of Physics. Her column runs every other Tuesday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.