|
 |
|
EMBO reports 9, 11, 1055 (2008)
doi:10.1038/embor.2008.194
Energy and biologists
Frank Gannon
|
|
|
|
This Editorial represents the personal views of Frank Gannon and not those of Science Foundation Ireland or the European Molecular Biology Organization.
|
|
|
|
Experts have been warning for years that the Earth has a limited supply of fossil fuels. But the fact that we will run out of oil sooner rather than later has not grabbed our collective attention. We have been vaguely aware of the problem, but, instead of changing our energy-hungry ways, we have carried on driving ever-bigger cars or using airplanes for cheap flights to Paris or New York, much as we used to take the bus to the next town.
Similarly, many scientists and environmentalists saw the links between our energy consumption and its effect on the environment, and have long-warned about the dire consequences of burning fossil fuels. Yet, their warnings fell on the deaf ears of most politicians and consumers who just wanted to get on with their lives. And now, although policy-makers and the public are increasingly accepting that carbon dioxide emissions contribute to global climate change with serious effects on the biosphere, it is already too late to prevent some of the changes from happening. Moreover, as oil and gas prices have increased markedly, we are slowly realizing that the price for oil addiction—let alone environmental degradation and global climate change—could be very high indeed.
There was a time when such debates seemed like politicking. The green parties' environmental idealism sometimes tipped over into fanaticism, whereas conservatives kept on insisting that energy conservation and environmental protection must not stand in the way of economic growth. The developed countries demanded measures from the rapidly growing economies in Asia and South America to clean up their act but were largely unwilling to change their own wasteful habits. The USA, in particular, put a larger emphasis on economic growth and domestic consumption than on developing alternatives to fossil fuels or measures to use energy more efficiently. Yet, slowly but inevitably, politicians and consumers alike are realizing that wasteful consumption and environmental degradation are not someone else's problems but must be dealt with by everyone.
Despite appearances, this is not an editorial about politics. It is about how biologists—more specifically, molecular biologists—can contribute to solving these problems. The obvious first step is to make energy production and conservation a prime focus of research, placing it on the same pedestal as curing cancer or developing therapies for HIV/AIDS and malaria. In fact, reducing our reliance on fossil fuels while preserving the environment might arguably be more important than other essential causes; an increasingly uninhabitable planet will affect both current and future generations, not only those who suffer from disease today.
We must therefore revisit our attitude towards certain avenues of research and accept that some of the solutions can only come from molecular biology. For example, after a brief period of enthusiasm, biofuels are now in the 'bad books' for various reasons, but mostly because their increasing production and the associated tax benefits are having an impact on the cost and availability of staple foods. Of course, sustainable food production is another important challenge that requires more research; yet, biologists could engineer energy crops to grow in poor soils and in harsh environments where it does not make sense to grow food crops. I suspect that such crops would eventually be welcomed even if they were genetically engineered. Similarly, we could also invest more into studying natural processes such as photosynthesis; bio-mimicry might help us to engineer more efficient ways for converting sunlight into energy.
In fact, many of the solutions to our current troubles will require genetic engineering of some type: whether it is creating artificial organisms through synthetic biology—another research field that holds great promise, even if one scales down the claims made by its supporters—engineering plants to produce biomass without the need for irrigation or fertilizers, or livestock with reduced methane emissions. Of course, such solutions are likely to generate the same skepticism and resistance as nuclear energy or current genetically modified crops; but short-term discussions should not block the pursuit of valid solutions in the long term.
Molecular biologists will not be able to create such solutions on their own but will need to work with researchers from other fields, as well as with politicians and the wider public. Achieving such goals will require a significant impetus—both political and scientific—for applied plant science, agricultural research and related fields if we are serious about producing 'green' energy without further degrading the environment. However, many of these research fields have suffered from a lack of funding, research opportunities, dedication and attention from high-impact journals in recent years. As a consequence of this general lack of attention, universities and research institutes have downsized or closed such departments, while many young scientists have been lost to other research areas—a brain drain that will be difficult to replenish.
Whichever way we turn, we are going to face the problems of an ill-prepared scientific community at a time when the public increasingly expects science to solve our current energy and environmental problems. This is complicated further by public skepticism about the science such solutions will require. Clearly, molecular biologists have to focus their attention on this huge challenge; it is no longer a question of 'if we should' but one of 'how we must'.
|
|
top  |
|
|
|
