> Interview with Prof. Marc Van Montagu

---

Interview with Prof. Marc Van Montagu

---

“Europe has to be competitive in both fundamental science and applied science to become top on innovation”

Prof. Marc Van Montagu, President of the European Federation of Biotechnology

22/01/2006

-Why did you accept the presidency of the European Federation of Biotechnology (EFB)?
“I felt accepting the presidency of EFB could be a unique opportunity to explain to our European societies the importance of transgenic plants and the economic and environmental potentials of biotechnology in general. I was instrumental in getting plant biotechnology off the ground by working out a basic method for gene engineering in plants and by constructing the first transgenic crops but I was quite astonished by its non-acceptance with society. I also see my involvement in the Federation as a good opportunity to improve communications with all the colleagues in biotech so that this science can be broadly applied.”

-What are your short & long term goals for the EFB?
“We could help stimulate capacity building in Europe to diminish the emotional and irrational attitude against transgenic plants, and therefore sometimes against biotechnology and science in general. Society should understand that our knowledge-based economy depends on R&D in the Life Sciences. New, less polluting production capacities, and novel consumption products are needed. Renewable energy sources are urgently sought. For this we need a strong scientific research. But we should be able to explain to society the importance of the contributions of innovations in the Life Sciences. Another goal is a better interaction between fundamental researchers in the public sector and scientists who want to contribute to product development and industrial research.  Sometimes young scientists focus on fundamental findings and see as the ultimate achievement having their research results published in top journals. Being attracted to new findings in fundamental science is extremely important, but it is also essential to be aware of the applications. For instance, many agricultural faculties are not much interested in molecular plant breeding, although that is extremely important for the future. If breeders were in better contact with fundamental scientists it could be very stimulating because they would have spectacular and immediate results. In the same way we need better interactions between medical researchers and clinicians, between microbial molecular biologists and food chemists. Europe has to be competitive in both fundamental science and applied science to become top on innovation.”

-You’ve been honoured for your scientific achievements on genetic modification. What led you to focus on this type of science?
“That was serendipity. We worked on how a class of bacteria was forcing plant tissue to make compounds that were beneficial for the bacteria, and by doing so we found that this bacteria was doing genetic engineering. It became clear that we should use that system to do gene engineering in plants. Unravelling how these bacteria proceeded yielded the basic methodology for genetic modification in plants. At that moment, plant science was not really a molecular science, and it was an opportunity to open a whole sector of organisms of the highest importance for our economy and the environment.”

-Why is it now an important time for plant biotechnology?
“Medical molecular biology has always worked out fantastic new tools to study the very complex network of interactions in a cell. It is clear that by applying these tools to plant research we will be able to learn how to construct novel crops which will be the source for the commercialisation of a long list of compounds and new materials. I am convinced we will be able to modify softwood into hardwood and we will be able to construct faster growing trees. We need economically acceptable reforestation to stop the destruction of the remaining tropical forest. In poor areas we need fast growing shrubs and trees for firewood. It’s a question of surviving. It will be a fantastic achievement when we discover how to grow completely new trees. Plant biotechnology will also be able to stimulate the economy in developing countries where food production is a problem. Biotechnology has the potential to make, working along with developing countries, valuable products. The whole world equilibrium will be in danger if we don’t create value in these developing countries. That’s why I’m more than optimistic, enthusiastic, that it will happen.”

-There are people who think that the work in your field will revolutionise agriculture in the Third World eradicating the poverty, malnutrition and hunger. How can plant biotechnology help developing countries?
“Any technology can help if people can be confident that what they grow can be sold. In the first place, high quality seeds will guarantee having a good harvest not destroyed by pests. Better fertilizers in irrigation will guarantee better plant growth. But for sustainable agriculture we need plants that need less water and have a better uptake of nutrients so that less fertilisers are needed. That is were biotechnology will come in. Biotech has the potential to reduce the amount of work needed on the field. We have to understand how our economy is running in the world. Europe also came from labour agriculture less than 100 years ago. At that moment our countryside was like the countryside of most of developing countries. If you bring science and technology to Third World countries, organisations such as the EFB and organisations in developing countries will have to work together to produce better seeds to develop products, and to increase their income and production.”

-In a recent newsletter from a Swiss NGO, it was asserted that genetically engineered plants have but one purpose in developing countries, which is to secure the profits of big companies…
“That’s classically absurd propaganda by people with a hidden political agenda. They have no valid arguments against transgenic plants and they need to find something to motivate people. Now they blame the multinationals, but they themselves are the ones who blocked the development of small and medium enterprises in Europe with over-regulations that result in extremely high costs. At the moment, commercializing a new transgenic plant costs over 100 million dollars. Multinationals are the only ones that can afford to bring the new product to the market.”

-As useful as green biotech is it still meets with a lot of resistance from politicians and more specifically religion. What would you tell people who say that you shouldn’t alter Mother Nature?
“Believing that Nature is good is an emotional point of view that has always been around. But the truth is that Nature is very cruel. Since humans domesticated plants and animals, 10.000 years ago, they have been so unwise to let their population increase from 50 Mi to 6.6 Bi. To survive they have continuously altered their crops. They “engineered” new crops (eg. wheat) with the then available skills. Today none of the plants we use for food could survive in nature. Farm animals could not survive either. If you let them loose, the chances of surviving outside of a protected environment would be minimal.”

-What’s your opinion on the debate on the safety or non-safety of genetically modified foods?
“You can prove that genetically modified foods are safe only by correlating them to foods that have been obtained by “classical” methods. There has never been any accident caused by genetically modified food. These plants have been growing for 10 years, and billions of people have eaten them. There’s no danger for health of human and animals, and there’s no danger scenario for the environment. There were people who claimed non-safety in newspapers, but later on it was proven to be false.”

-What are the environmental benefits of using genetically modified crops?
“Gradually, we will be able to work towards organic agriculture. We will use transgenic plants that will need less fertiliser and that will be able to use less toxic chemicals that are degraded within weeks by the soil micro organisms. This results already now in a no tillage agriculture bringing a better conservation of top soil. We will construct plants that can detoxify polluted soils. Doubling yield per acreage might diminish the economic pressure to cultivate the last wild nature remaining.”

-Is the public concern about GMOs higher in Europe than in the US?
“Certainly, but why shouldn’t people be concerned when they read in the newspapers that GMOs could be dangerous? It is difficult to have one’s own opinion. The way of doing politics in Europe is very different than in the United States. The groups against GMOs are not so powerful there. There is a high confidence in the National Control Agencies in the US. All the organisations involved in regulatory affairs take science based decisions.”

-What is needed to reduce the public concern about GMOs in Europe?
“The commercialisation of GM-plant products that bring price benefits to the consumers.
The public sector needs to realise they have to speak out. If people are unaware of the advantages of using GMOs the chances of having people willing to take a risk and invest in new products will be reduced. Scientists cannot blame European citizens for being against genetically modified organisms. They should blame themselves for not being organised and for not interacting enough with the public. We will only have a mature planet if we have a world population that knows about science and that can differentiate between a false argument from a real one.”

-What is the incentive for governments to invest more money on renewable energy sources such as biofuel?
“All progress in economy comes from innovation, and innovation based on knowledge is always better. Governments have to support all knowledge around life sciences because it will be the basis of a future industry. A country that is not innovative and constantly renewing will never progress, and the truth is that Europe is still a little bit slow when compared to other countries such as China. There is still an enormous reserve of gas, but we need to explore all the alternatives. The technology is completely new and all the knowledge is still very recent. Nobody has been able to work on how to improve photosynthesis or how to solve our Co2 problem yet. We can see the genes involved, but we still don’t really know them. Fundamental research has to be accelerated and governments need to invest more in all aspects of Biotechnology, and in priority in agricultural biotechnology. In the 6th Framework programme there was almost no support for plant science with the excuse that society was against it. It was very dramatic for Europe. There should be special efforts done to demonstrate that life sciences are beneficial for society and have an application in Industry and production.”